Government's workfare scheme

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

First of all, an area of agreement. The organisation of the stewards was dire. Lessons must be learnt, and possibly penalties applied and stewards given some compensation.

Compensation? Why? It was all legal, wasn't it?

If you recruit volunteers, you still have responsibilities to them.

Were any contracts breached?

And who would provide compensation? Molly Price? Seems unlikely given her past form and her company's current finances.

I don't know enough of the state of Molly's finances. And I wasn't thinking of punitive damages, more a financial acknowledgement that their own level of stewardship was below what one could reasonably expect. I would have thought, given their contracts for the Olympics, that the company could be "leant on" to a certain extent. Pursuade them to do the decent thing.

I'm about to go out, so can't check, but there was a link to the company's financial info - not very healthy, IIRC. Besides, who would do the leaning and why?

Source of or for what?

Your assertions. For example, you said (or at least implied) that they got to keep their boots, etc. The original article doesn't say that, it just says the company had to spend the money. Workwear usually remains the property of the company, not the 'employee'.

As for Prescot's outburst, frankly, I think he should go and stuff his face with another pie. Certainly, the way the stewards were organised was dreadful, but the level of responsibility for this is way below government minister level. He is just intent on making mischief. Sometimes incompetence manifests itself. Of all people, Prezza should be aware of that...

At what level do you think the buck stops?

Certainly below cabinet ministers. Maybe with the civil servants who arranged the contracts. I can't be more specific than that, as I don't have a map of the organisational responsibilities involved, but it is ridiculous that something so comparatively small on a national scale should be blown out of all proportion. Yes, the volunteers suffered, but probably no more than thousands of other people in other aspects of life. Sh*t happens, and much of the time, it's not the government's fault (whichever party is in power).

No, it's never the Government's fault that people at the bottom end of society suffer daily, is it?

[anarchic-teapot]

Is it just me, or is there something about the phrase 'getting a job' that has the expectation of some form of remuneration for doing that job? Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

22 miles across the Channel, that principle is enshrined in law.

[Nick]

First of all, an area of agreement. The organisation of the stewards was dire. Lessons must be learnt, and possibly penalties applied and stewards given some compensation.

If you recruit volunteers, you still have responsibilities to them.

Were any contracts breached?

Any employer has a general duty of care towards staff. The fact that something is not specified in a contract does not mean that such a duty of care is somehow excluded.

And who would provide compensation? Molly Price? Seems unlikely given her past form and her company's current finances.

I don't know enough of the state of Molly's finances. And I wasn't thinking of punitive damages, more a financial acknowledgement that their own level of stewardship was below what one could reasonably expect. I would have thought, given their contracts for the Olympics, that the company could be "leant on" to a certain extent. Pursuade them to do the decent thing.

I'm about to go out, so can't check, but there was a link to the company's financial info - not very healthy, IIRC. Besides, who would do the leaning and why?[/quote]In the first instance, the organisers who hired Close Protection UK. Because Close Protection had not provided the stewarding to an acceptable standard. Reasons to do so? Well, to getpeople off their back for a start. Secondly, I doubt they consider it good business practice not to have a de-brief on the event. Even though most of it is ...ahem... water under the bridge.

Source of or for what?

Your assertions. For example, you said (or at least implied) that they got to keep their boots, etc. The original article doesn't say that, it just says the company had to spend the money. Workwear usually remains the property of the company, not the 'employee'.[/quote]OK, fair enough. I did imply that they could keep the workwear, as that is the implication of the report in the fount of all truth, The Grauniad:

The firm [Close Protection UK] said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep

I also said that "All the stewards were volunteers". I implied that the Grauniad's opening sentences themselves implied some sort of coersion, but in the same article (which you quoted- did you read it through.... ) it reported that Close Protection UK had said

that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.

I also talked about having something to put on your CV. Not only is that obviously true, but the BBC article which you cited reported that

Work experience is a compulsory part of the NVQ2 qualification in stewarding - which is essential for work at major events such as the Olympics.

. So it was even more directly relevant than I at first thought. (Of course, whether the government should be erecting hoops and barriers to get through, round or over, before people can be employed, is another matter...). And is this not what we all have to do at some point in our careers? I vividly remember engineering students, freezing, in the wind and rain on Woodhouse Moor, Leeds, standing around with theodilytes or some such. They weren't being paid either. Indeed, these days, they will be paying for the experience. I dare say, at agricultural college, students get to drive tractors and shear sheep without being paid either. And students aren't paid for their educational careers either, and plenty of them would rather be doing something else! As for discomfort, I've seen the bruises on the arms of medical students who have had the pleasure of having had somewhat inexperienced fellow students practice blood extraction on them.

And, for all their criticism, the Grauniad admits that they are a direct supporter of the charity which contracted Close Protection, so they can't be too disapproving can they? Either they approve their methods, or they didn't do their homework.

I also heard the boss of Close Protection interviewed on the Today Programme, as well as Prezza, a couple of days ago.

Good enough sources for you?

[At what level do you think the buck stops?

Certainly below cabinet ministers. Maybe with the civil servants who arranged the contracts. I can't be more specific than that, as I don't have a map of the organisational responsibilities involved, but it is ridiculous that something so comparatively small on a national scale should be blown out of all proportion. Yes, the volunteers suffered, but probably no more than thousands of other people in other aspects of life. Sh*t happens, and much of the time, it's not the government's fault (whichever party is in power).

No, it's never the Government's fault that people at the bottom end of society suffer daily, is it?

Sorry Alan, but that is just a trite slogan. You asked a question and I gave you a direct answer. It is just as ludicrous to expect the Home Secretary to sort out a cock-up such as this, as it would be for me to expect Andrew Lansley to explain why a surgeon's secretary has gone on honeymoon without changing her answerphone, which say she is on the other line. (As happened to me, this week.)

Yes, things were badly organised. (As are many government initiatives, whatever the party in power. Remember the Millenium Dome...?). But this story does not represent a witch-hunt on the genuinely unemployed.

[Alan H]

OK, fair enough. I did imply that they could keep the workwear, as that is the implication of the report in the fount of all truth, The Grauniad:

The firm [Close Protection UK] said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep

Thanks for pointing that out - had missed it. But it's not clear whether this is just referring to the plastic ponchos, the hi-vis vests or whether it included the boots, combat trousers and polo shirts as you said. We are not told, but Isuspect they might have got the poncho. We may never know.

I also said that "All the stewards were volunteers". I implied that the Grauniad's opening sentences themselves implied some sort of coersion, but in the same article (which you quoted- did you read it through.... ) it reported that Close Protection UK had said

that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.

The BBC article said:

Of these, 50 people under the age of 25 were paid the government's standard rate for apprentices of £2.60 per hour and the other 30 either accepted the same rate or refused payment because it would adversely affect their benefits.

So it looks like it didn't affect the benefits of those who refused payment because it would affect their benefits.

And, for all their criticism, the Grauniad admits that they are a direct supporter of the charity which contracted Close Protection, so they can't be too disapproving can they?

I would hope that that wouldn't have affected their reporting.

Certainly below cabinet ministers. Maybe with the civil servants who arranged the contracts. I can't be more specific than that, as I don't have a map of the organisational responsibilities involved, but it is ridiculous that something so comparatively small on a national scale should be blown out of all proportion.

Maybe someone needs to take responsibility rather than having sloping shoulders? Do you think we might see similar things happening during the Olympics?

Yes, the volunteers suffered, but probably no more than thousands of other people in other aspects of life.

So that makes it alright then? Surely you don't believe that.

No, it's never the Government's fault that people at the bottom end of society suffer daily, is it?

Sorry Alan, but that is just a trite slogan.

It's not a slogan, trite or otherwise. See the link to the story of Paul Mickleburgh.

You asked a question and I gave you a direct answer. It is just as ludicrous to expect the Home Secretary to sort out a cock-up such as this...

It's too late to sort out this cock-up. What needs to be done is for the Government to do what they can to make sure things like this don't happen again.

Yes, things were badly organised. (As are many government initiatives, whatever the party in power. Remember the Millenium Dome...?).

The bad organisation was by the private company employed who treated the people so badly (as do many companies). The Government may not have known how the people were going to be treated, but it behoves them to do what they can to make sure this appalling treatment is not repeated.

[Nick]

You asked a question and I gave you a direct answer. It is just as ludicrous to expect the Home Secretary to sort out a cock-up such as this...

It's too late to sort out this cock-up.

It can't now be prevented, but it can be remedied.

Thanks for pointing that out - had missed it. But it's not clear whether this is just referring to the plastic ponchos, the hi-vis vests or whether it included the boots, combat trousers and polo shirts as you said. We are not told, but Isuspect they might have got the poncho. We may never know.

I don't think that's the most probable interpretation from the text, but as you imply, we can't really tell from the text.

So it looks like it didn't affect the benefits of those who refused payment because it would affect their benefits.

What we have, is directly conflicting assertions. Someone is wrong, somewhere. The report does not clarify the situation, so we can draw no conclusion from it. If, and I do mean if, benefits are cut by more than the amount of income earned, then that is absurd, and needs to be changed.

And, for all their criticism, the Grauniad admits that they are a direct supporter of the charity which contracted Close Protection, so they can't be too disapproving can they?

I would hope that that wouldn't have affected their reporting.

True, but as the charity appears to be devoted to doing just this sort of thing, it does seem odd, doesn't it?

Certainly below cabinet ministers. Maybe with the civil servants who arranged the contracts. I can't be more specific than that, as I don't have a map of the organisational responsibilities involved, but it is ridiculous that something so comparatively small on a national scale should be blown out of all proportion.

Maybe someone needs to take responsibility rather than having sloping shoulders? Do you think we might see similar things happening during the Olympics?

We might. And yes, I think someone someone at the appropriate level should take responsibility. But that is not the Home Secretary.

Yes, the volunteers suffered, but probably no more than thousands of other people in other aspects of life.

So that makes it alright then? Surely you don't believe that.

No, I don't, but you missed the point I was making, which was, that those who suffer in similar ways should have their cases addressed by those at an appropriate level of authority, which, inevitably, will be a long way below the Home Secretary. If the company sorted out their errors of judgement, then, as far as this incident is concerned, the voluteers grievances would be addressed. Putting in plans to help prevent such things in future goes beyond the company, but nowhere near the direct intervention of the Home Secretary.

No, it's never the Government's fault that people at the bottom end of society suffer daily, is it?

Sorry Alan, but that is just a trite slogan.

It's not a slogan, trite or otherwise. See the link to the story of Paul Mickleburgh.

Yes, I saw that. But it is the exception which is newsworthy. I'm not going to dispute the facts as reported. If they are true, then I hope and expect the result to change. But I would draw your attention to the fact that the paper describes the officials as Tory officials. For a start, the government is a coalition. And there were such officials under Labour too. Seems like the paper is more interested in attacking the Tories to me, which lowers my confidence in their journalism.

What needs to be done is for the Government to do what they can to make sure things like this don't happen again.

In general, yes, but a government can't micro-manage everything to prevent every cock-up. And to try could well do more harm than good.

Yes, things were badly organised. (As are many government initiatives, whatever the party in power. Remember the Millenium Dome...?).

The bad organisation was by the private company employed who treated the people so badly (as do many companies). The Government may not have known how the people were going to be treated, but it behoves them to do what they can to make sure this appalling treatment is not repeated.

Pinning the criticism on the fact that a private company was involved is not a strong line. There are plenty of occasions where "appalling treatment" is suffered by ordinary citizens at the hands of government agencies. The common factor, is that people are involved, not whether the delivery is undertaken by a private or public concern.

[Alan H]

Well, all that money saved from handouts to the sick, vulnerable and needy have to go somewhere, don't they?

Prince Charles enjoys bumper 11% rise in taxpayer funding

We are all in this together, aren't we?

[Dave B]

If that is only spent on his public appearances for the state or charity, or the essential maintenance of the public property he occupies, it's not so bad, not that I think we need him in the first place. If one penny goes to boost the millions he makes personally on his grotty products, rents etc. then that is definitely wrong.

[Nick]

Well, all that money saved from handouts to the sick, vulnerable and needy have to go somewhere, don't they?

Prince Charles enjoys bumper 11% rise in taxpayer funding

We are all in this together, aren't we?

Frankly, I think it is absolutely pathetic, yes, pathetic, of the paper to say that Prince Charles "enjoyed" anything. If Charles conducts more engagements on behalf of the State, then it has to be funded. None of it went to Charles personally.

[Nick]

If that is only spent on his public appearances for the state or charity, or the essential maintenance of the public property he occupies, it's not so bad,

Indeed.

not that I think we need him in the first place.

That's up to you.

If one penny goes to boost the millions he makes personally on his grotty products, rents etc. then that is definitely wrong.

Not a penny does.

[Fia]

I'd have thought in these days of austerity, Chaz could chip in a bit for his jollys...

[Alan H]

Well, all that money saved from handouts to the sick, vulnerable and needy have to go somewhere, don't they?

Prince Charles enjoys bumper 11% rise in taxpayer funding

We are all in this together, aren't we?

Frankly, I think it is absolutely pathetic, yes, pathetic, of the paper to say that Prince Charles "enjoyed" anything. If Charles conducts more engagements on behalf of the State, then it has to be funded. None of it went to Charles personally.

Awww...the poor little thing. Let's have a whip round for him. Does the same apply to people on benefits having to work for diddly-squat? Or those that have had their IB cut. Or those who have to pay more into their pensions to get the same - or less - back when they retire at an older age? Or those who've had to forgo pay rises and will have to forgo them for the foreseeable future. Or those who are having their HB capped or cut. We're not all really in this together, are we? To paraphrase Napoleon, "We're all in this together, but some aren't quite so far in it as others".

[Nick]

I'd have thought in these days of austerity, Chaz could chip in a bit for his jollys...

He pays 50% tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall. And he is paid nothing for the work that he does do, often charitable, often civil, sometimes at the governments behest, never for personal profit.

[Nick]

Well, all that money saved from handouts to the sick, vulnerable and needy have to go somewhere, don't they?

Prince Charles enjoys bumper 11% rise in taxpayer funding

We are all in this together, aren't we?

Frankly, I think it is absolutely pathetic, yes, pathetic, of the paper to say that Prince Charles "enjoyed" anything. If Charles conducts more engagements on behalf of the State, then it has to be funded. None of it went to Charles personally.

Awww...the poor little thing. Let's have a whip round for him. Does the same apply to people on benefits having to work for diddly-squat? Or those that have had their IB cut. Or those who have to pay more into their pensions to get the same - or less - back when they retire at an older age? Or those who've had to forgo pay rises and will have to forgo them for the foreseeable future. Or those who are having their HB capped or cut. We're not all really in this together, are we? To paraphrase Napoleon, "We're all in this together, but some aren't quite so far in it as others".

Except, of course, that the entirety of the increase in costs represents money going to other people, not to Charles. And taking a look at the Royal "Firm" as a whole, their budget has been frozen for years. The multi-billion Crown Estates entire income goes to the Exchequer. The entire cost of the monarchy would hardly even pay for the election of a president.

As for talk of pensions, you can't get more money out unless you put more money in. Not even using Grauniad economics. The trouble with socialism, is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

[Nick]

Ooops! Double post!

[Alan H]

The trouble with socialism, is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

I never mentioned socialism. Or the Guardian.

The problem with capitalism, is that, sooner or later, you run out of growth.

[Nick]

The problem with capitalism, is that, sooner or later, you run out of growth.

Er... no. First of all, please show us all any economic system which has produced more and better growth than capitalist free markets.

Secondly, our current woes are caused by the collapse of the property bubble, which was caused by governments, not markets, and the lunacy of the Euro, caused by political idiocy, not capitalism or free markets.

[Alan H]

The problem with capitalism, is that, sooner or later, you run out of growth.

Er... no. First of all, please show us all any economic system which has produced more and better growth than capitalist free markets.

No.

It's also not the point. We've been here several times before and I don't intend wasting any more time explaining my point other than to say that this current system - whatever name you want to give it and whatever benefits it may have brought some/many now or in the past - doesn't do what as I see as some of the essentials of what we, as humans, should be ensuring: that basic human needs of food, shelter, clean water, healthcare and the like (including everything about freedom and self-determination - that's another topic by itself), are available to all, regardless of age, creed, social status, family wealth, IQ, shoe size, or school they went to.

Any system that does not do that and does not have that as a core aim is an utter failure. One that consistently ignores the plight of those less capable of fending for themselves and deliberately creates a dog-eat-dog, "I'm all right Jack, sod the rest" culture is abhorrent to me and a disgrace to humanity. That includes the current system.

Secondly, our current woes are caused by the collapse of the property bubble, which was caused by governments, not markets, and the lunacy of the Euro, caused by political idiocy, not capitalism or free markets.

I really don't care what might have caused it. Really, I don't.

[Fia]

(crossposted with Alan)

The problem with capitalism, is that, sooner or later, you run out of growth.

Er... no. First of all, please show us all any economic system which has produced more and better growth than capitalist free markets.

Well, Nick, as capitalism is so patently not working on any level that I would call fair, perhaps this whole concept of growth is the problem. We've tried it. Spent trillions of pounds marketing crap to folk who are exhorted to consume, with no thought of the environmental damage, folk getting into huge debt for 'stuff' that they have been so expertly sold they need. The line between need and want has been whitewashed. Whilst we affluent folk get agitated when the internet connection goes down, whilst some are sat on their smug self-satisfied new sofas in their trendily decorated homes sipping a chilled chardonnay yet still having miserable lives, many of our fellow humans have no home, no water, no food supply, health care, no education, no electricity, no hope. Capitalism has failed us all.

[Secondly, our current woes are caused by the collapse of the property bubble, which was caused by governments, not markets, and the lunacy of the Euro, caused by political idiocy, not capitalism or free markets.

And there's me thinking it was due to the banks playing games with other folk's money: giving them a mortgage the banks knew they couldn’t afford, but still couldn’t stop themselves in facilitating the wants -not needs- that their customers had been cynically sold, as they thought they might make a killing. Then farting about between themselves to sell off the dodgy debts.

And to my mind the Euro is not lunacy. Just as I'd like to see a consensual planet wide governance, I'd also like just one agreed unit of paper exchange. I can hear you spluttering already, Nick In the words of the wonderful Carl Sagan we're on a pale blue dot, suspended in a sunbeam. It’s patently ridiculous to me that our species wastes so much time, brainpower and resources on intangible things when we’re nowhere near getting the tangible equitable.

Cross? Moi? Heaven forfend

[Nick]

When you guys have a solution, let me know.

[Dave B]

Nick, I will grant that, even with my sketchy knowledge of economic history, the present system is better than most - at least.

However I would personally like to see some form of monitoring, or something, on a global scale where the greed of these companies has to be balanced against the effect on people. Also, as in Modern Economics, there should be a punishment system for fraud etc. that is so punitive that any sane person would think twice - something that makes the old debtors' prisons of London look like a 3 star hotel.

It will never happen of course, the fat cats have got the world, and a lot of its political parties, by the bollocks.

[Alan H]

From a GP who writes under the name of The Jobbing Doctor:

Criminal?

The modern GP sometimes is the chronicler for the modern man.

We write down experiences that people have, and none is more shocking than what we, as a society, are trying to do to those who are less fortunate than us.

I have recently seen a patient who has profound and severe mental health problems. This patient has been so bad that I have had to involve the psychiatric services to help with the management. Considering that I manage almost all of my psychiatric patients without recourse to secondary care services, that gives an indication of the severity of the illness.

This patient has just gone for her Hokey-Cokey medical with a firm acting on behalf of the Department of Work of Health. The patient has been told by a nurse with a clipboard that they are fit for work and their benefit will be stopped. My patient has become suicidal with worry, and I had to spend 30 minutes ensuring that these ideas of Deliberate Self Harm were not acted on.

A society is judged by how the most vulnerable are dealt with, and the current state in Britain is plumbing new depths of savagery towards the ill and poor.

Two patients have been wrecked yesterday, and I will see more next week.

I write down their experiences in the notes.

Meanwhile, middle-class Britain blithely sails on, certain that the "scroungers" are being dealt with.

They don't know the half of it.