Talk:Workfare/Archive 1

Reverted from school paper
I have just reverted the change where the entire article was replaced by someone's school paper. Before making such broad changes to a page, please take some time to review wikipedia's policies and standards. Mdbrownmsw 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the original add was uncyclopedic, but a lot of work had gone into making the page steadily more encyclopediac since the add. The revert left it in an anemic state, which likely prompted the original bloat in the first place.  Such an extreme deletion might have been necessary to meet "wikipedia's poilcies and standards," but without more specificity, it's hard to judge which policies/standards you mean.  More importantly, it's hard to see why the whole article should be trashed, rather than just sections of it.  I recommend re-reverting, and continuing the stepwise improvement that was ongoing, anyone else agree?  Thomas B 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or if we were to rebuild the page from scratch, any ideas about its structure? It's definitely a contentious idea with many proponents and opponents, maybe we should model the article after another controversial article?  History, prominent proponents/opponents, arguments for and against?  Thomas B 20:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted unreferenced criticism section
Quoted from above: "Before making such broad changes to a page, please take some time to review wikipedia's policies and standards." With that in mind I reverted this section which had been flagged as unreferenced for a long time. There are a number of points and counterpoints in referenced material on this subject and incorporating them into a discussion section would look more encyclopedic and less like original research. I'll try to come back here as time permits and help out but whoever does the re-build needs to look at point of view skew as well as developing referenced, encyclopedic content. I'm not sure one could obtain neutrality unless the section included both points of view in tandem.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

added
I added a (really mild) controversy section putting out there that many people think workfare is racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.116 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I ahve removed same as unsourced POV. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not object to your removal; however, I would argue that such things should be included along with referenced material, since there are people, and not just laypeople but academics and prominent activists, who have blasted workfare as racist and backed it up. It is not okay, simply because allegations of racism underlying workfare are unreferenced, to therefore not have it at all in workfare's Wikipedia article. Instead, what should happen is that the people who are arguing that welfare is racist should be included in the article with referenced material. Those wiki users who want to help out with this, please come forward. 64.152.50.41 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one denies that the material should be included once it is sourced, the question is what to do with claims pending citation. Wikipedia's general approach is to remove unsourced items, but to draw attention to something that needs a citation, it might be acceptable to put a "needs verification" tag up for a few months, then remove it if there are no responses. In the meantime, the sentence could certainly be reworked, since right now it is almost unreadable. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 04:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did my best to clean it up while we await the academic sources. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 04:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Template added today and later blanked
I blanked the template recently added to this page because it seemed to me to be potentially highly contentious. There should be a good reason for adding this kind of template because there are already categories and related links as a way of getting further information.

I'd be grateful if editors would take a look at the template as it was before I delted it and also at the discussion I started at the template's talk page and provide some feedback.

I just have a sense that visuality of the template and some of the subcategories could have had a politically unbalanced presentation not in the spirit of Wikipedia. For instance the linking with articles about the negative side of the welfare state (fraud, dependency, etc.) without equal linking to articles on the positive side (alleviation of stress, social cohesion, etc.). Also some of the articles where the template was placed seem to me to have very little to do with the welfare state per se. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed -14 Benefit Cut Related Suicides Already!
To me the tone of the article seems to favor the goal of workfare. I don't believe the public favors either workfare or forced gainful employment. I realize how difficult it would be to find published sources that favor freedom instead. Maybe there would be some in Australia, considering their history. --Rhbsihvi (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)  Most people agree with 'workfare' under economic conditions where there is the option of working and feeding yourself and your family - however, there are no jobs available across most of the United Kingdom, and a cursory glance at the 'applicants' counters on jobseekers sites like (e.g. no advertisment intended, 'reed.co.uk') demonstrates 60+ applicants per advertised vacancy). The controversy in the UK at the moment is the provision of unemployed people free of charge to large businesses, who are financially well able to afford to pay them the 'minimum wage'. Large firms (e.g. Tesco, ASDA, Walmart, JDSports...) have already begun to dismiss those staff who are employed on a minimum wage (~ £250 a week for 38 hours), and replace them with free unemployed people (who receive a mere £67.50 a week from the government in benefits)- it creates a 'trickle up ' economy, and perversely, leads to a greater number of people who have to survive on state benefit of £67.50 a week. Hence the 'civil unrest' of recent weeks. Along of course, with the spectacular number of suicides that independent and impartial Coroner's juries in the UK have attributed to stress caused exclusively by cuts to benefit and/or work assessments for permanently disabled citizens, which are extreme, threatening and abusive. DWP Guidelines on Benefit-Cut Related Suicides? I think the article could be improved by the inclusion of up to date content regarding Smith's proposed cuts to benefits which run parallel to 'Workfare',and the guidelines he issued to the DWP on how to deal with the anticipated number of suicides it would cause . It is, after all, Smith's 'legacy' project - the current article gives the impression no one will receive less than 26K per annum. The reality however has been very different - with over 13 suicides to date being attributed to the new lower level of allowances - particularly for the disabled. The BBC's coverage of the Lord's defeat of the proposed £26K 'cap'( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16656824), when Nick Robinson argued that taxpayers did not like to hear about "..the many, many thousands of people now who - because of cuts to disability benefit and cuts to employment and support allowance and cuts to housing benefit - are now really suffering", Smith replied  'THEY ARE NOT SUFFERING . This seems an odd theological point for a practicing Catholic to make. As a Catholic, surely Mr. Smith believes these people are now roasting in Hell- so they must be suffering dreadfully? Some have left small children behind them, who are going to cost more to look after now their parents are dead, which is hardly a prudent fiscal strategy! For political balance, you should include the following 14 cases of suicide, in which impartial Inquest juries have attributed suicides to stresses caused by benefit cuts: Two cases involving ex-British services personnel are poor Mr. David Sanderson of Southfield (), and Army Veteran Mark and Helen Mullins of Bedworth(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8878543/Poverty-suicide-couple-had-warned-of-hopeless-situation.html) .Then, there are the disabled suicides, like Paul Willcoxson, 33, of Corby, Northants, who according to his suicide note, was worried about benefit cuts when he hung himself in April. And Elaine Christian, 57, of Hull, who according to reports of an inquest in July, was worried about a meeting to assess her disability benefits. She was found drowned in a drain with ten self-inflicted cuts to her wrist and had taken painkillers . The Taxpayer's burden was further relieved in March 2010, when Vicky Harrison, a 21-year-old, took her life with a massive overdose of drugs in Darwen, Lancashire. < http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/suic-m18.shtml>. Another 10 benefit-cuts related suicides are:- 1.  2.  3.  4. & 5.  6.  7.  8.  9. <http://www.consumeractiongroup.co…elp-me-take-Atos-and-DWP-to-court> 10. <http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-…ad-family-claims-115875-23147158/> 11. Addition to Deaths 4 & 5 Above. Mother was pregnant so her unborn baby died as well. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/PRE…TO+DEATH+HOLDING+SON.-a0213434697 Plus an example of fatal Atos misdiagnosis at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society…l/24/atos-case-study-larry-newman>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.236.47 (talk • contribs)

Emma Harrison - A4e UK Workfare Provider
Should be a link to her profile - she lives here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thornbridge_Hall_171166_2c9ad802.jpg and is the largest provider of workfare programmes in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.223.243 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1 in 5 UK Families Borrowing Money for Groceries
There should be some mention of the hardship the Workfare scheme has caused in the UK: this reliable Daily Mail article of 17th April 2012 <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131010/Staggering-rise-British-food-bank-One-opens-week-families-pay-packet-away-having-money.html> shows that new paupers FoodBanks are being opened up across the UK at a rate of 1 every week, and that 1 in 5 families are being forced to borrow money to purchase groceries - even those who are in paid employment! 212.139.99.83 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.99.83 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Section on UK scheme?
The UK government introduced this scheme last autumn, and I came on here to try and find out more, but there was no information. IMHO there should be at least a paragraph acknowledging the UK's participation in the scheme, and the controversy - see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102228/Tesco-row-unpaid-nightshift-jobs-expenses-plus-Jobseekers-Allowance.html?ito=feeds-newsxml and http://www.demotix.com/news/1059580/workfare-protesters-close-tesco-westminster-london — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.150.158 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, came here myself to find information on the recent UK controversies you've pointed out. I will add this section. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012

<P> For reference purposes, the current civil unrest in the UK should be cross linked to the wiki entries on the forerunner of this scheme- the 'Training and Enterprise Council' schemes which were run by the Conservative government in the late 80s/early 90s, but which collapsed under the weight of the greed of the 'training providers' and 'placement employers'. BBC Panorama did a wonderful expose in 1994 entitled 'Gravy Training' - I couldnt find it on youtube, but the British Film Institute list it at <http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/508679>, so perhaps you could include a link, for research purposes? <P>You should also link this to the Wiki page on 'Emma Harrison (entrepreneur)', who has been accused of exploiting the unemployed and defrauding the country of millions of pounds via her training company 'A4e' (link). In both the TEC and latter day A4e -type companies, fraud was rife - if your training provider didnt have computers, ,fax machines or photocopiers, you were allowed to SIMULATE sending emails, faxes and photocopiers on a tick form for an 'NVQ'. Placement providers received £50 a week for giving the jobseekers 'work experience', they received their benefits + bus fares - and it was compulsory. The trainees were only supposed to be supplied to employers if there was the prospect of a full time job at the end of the placement - however if there was 'a sudden downturn' in business, they could retract this offer. They got into the habit of having 'sudden downturns in business', and oddly enough, once they got used to being paid to have a trainee, instead of paying employees a living wage, their businesses had a habit of suddenly 'picking up ' a fortnight later, so they could apply for another free trainee + £50 a week! Tragic way of bleeding the economy dry -plus having your benefits cut off for refusing slave labour has already led to at least 15 suicides in the UK - a cross link to the wiki page for the Department of Works and Pensions minister, 'Ian Duncan Smith' would also be useful. 79.70.226.46 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.226.46 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Could also add the number of young teenagers who died on conservative government's unpaid 'training schemes' in the 1980s due to lack of supervision or adequate Health & Safety enforcement was a staggering 85 (http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/youth-contract-could-lead-to-more-deaths-1-4025602 ), hence the uproar regarding the duty of care breaches afforded to unpaid stewards who were forced to spend the night in torrential rain under London Bridge the night before the Queens' Jubilee pageant in London. 80.42.224.28 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.224.28 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits
While this article is a good start, much more could be added to emphasize the intersectionality of welfare/workfare and the different experiences globally. Connections to poverty (and the poverty threshold, meaning who receives welfare), race, gender, welfare states/regimes, and additional policies that began to shape workfirst thinking would be useful. It seems that this article has not been updated in many years. Additionally, it is important to note controversiality of topics, however one should ensure that the piece remains neutral. LizCottle (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I have made some pretty sweeping edits to this page. Tried to keep its format as a for vs against article, but took it away from dot points. I've also added alot of info about programmes that are more about giving back to society as opposed to simple jobsearch. I think it would be cool to put some info in about implementations of workfare in different countries, but my knowledge is mostly from the Australian system, and i think it would kinda look out of place by itself. If someone puts in a bit about the US or Canadian (or any other) system I might add some about Australia.

jabberwalkee_

Interesting reading. Corrected some typos and little bits for better sense, hope all OK. G-Man

Workfare is a system set up by the government in which programs are set up for poor people to work for the money they receive from the government instead of from receiving it in a traditional welfare sense. Welfare on the other hand is a system by the government which is set up to give money to poor people. In Wikipedia’s Encyclopedia workfare is described as an alternative model to social welfare systems, but it is not really a separate system as welfare. In America, workfare is the welfare system we use, it is what the term welfare in America means today. America never officially stopped using welfare or declared welfare to be over and workfare to take its place but over the past seventy years welfare changed from the 1930’s. So in a sense workfare is the modern day welfare system used in America. Tylerstanforth 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Tyler Stanforth The above definition does not apply in a UK context- here, all people who are in paid employment pay a 'National Insurance' contribution every week - 'unemployment benefit' is therefore a payment made from the insurance company (i.e. the Government) - being 'poor' is irrelevant.79.70.226.46 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.226.46 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hooverville [Duncanvilles] construction plans?
With an anticipated 1/4 million housing benefit claimants in London no longer able to afford market rents in London alone due to impending cuts to Housing Benefits, and a Shelter estimate of ~13,000 tenants being evicted prior to the Olympic games, so wealthy landlords can rake in money from Olympics visitors, there has been speculation that the minister for the Department of Works and Pensions (Ian Duncan) intends to use the Police to clear any 'Hooverville' type encampments/tented communities that build up in London, particularly during the run up to the 2012 Olympics. Where, if anywhere, has the DWP designated these tents should be pitched as an alternative to the approaches to the Olympics venues. Were these prompted by the suicide of former soldier Mark Mullins and his disabled wife, reported in the Daily Mail [<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059238/Army-veteran-Mark-Mullins-wife-Helen-driven-suicide-poverty.html>] who killed themselves after 18 months of struggling to survive on the £57.50 Jobseeker's Allowance payment Mr Mullins, a 48-year-old former Army physical training instructor, was able to claim, having to walk 12 miles to eat free soup at a Salvation Army soup kitchen.

Stub to Start
Article was moved from Stub to Start status because it has a significant amount of information and multiple references. Moved some of the intro text into subsections specific to those areas. Totally crazy how many references there are in this talk page without adding those to the main article. Will try to move through and add them. In addition, the main article has not had a Stub tag for some time. Araesmojo (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)