After pressure from campaigners, Scrapbook can reveal that Boots have pulled out of the government’s controversial workfare scheme. In a statement, the high street chemist revealed it was store managers happy to take people on for free for long periods of time — something they claim was not company policy.
“As a company our policy has never been to participate in schemes which compel people to work on a mandatory basis or use people on work placement to replace paid employment. We do offer voluntary placements to individuals who want to gain work experience for periods of up to two weeks as part of our local community stores activities. We are currently restating this policy to store managers.”
Who’s next? We’re looking at you Greggs and WHSmith.
4 Comments
Putting the Boot in on IDS and Grayling
The statement looks good, but it is not clear whether Boots will continue to take part in the “work experience scheme” which although it is techincally voluntary because you can pull out in the first week (although if you leave after the first week you will get sanctioned), it is presented as being mandatory.
If you are in any doubt of that, read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/23/jobcentre-hinders-search-for-work
We need clarification from Boots as to what these work experience placements actually are, and whether they are completely voluntary, with no threat of sanctions, before we can really say they are in the clear, and start to shop there again
The “Work Experience Programme” is the thin end of the wedge. This is what Grayling and IDS constantly refer to when they talk of a voluntary element, but this is solely for 18-24 year olds, and there is a possibilty of withdrawal after a day without having to face sanctions. It is why the rhetoric has shifted towards young people, because there is a voluntary aspect to it, however small.
The “Work Programme” on the other hand, to which the vast majority of claimants are assigned to, is completely mandatory in all aspects. Anyone involved in this scheme will face sanctions if the providers (a4e etc) raise a compliance doubt. These are ritually enforced by the DWP, and can be for the smallest of reasons.
Workfare is often used as a catch-all, but each scheme within the framework is different. They are easily confused, but should not be used interchangeably as has been the case. There are also other schemes, such as Mandatory Work Activity that also fall under the Workfare banner. However, because Grayling et al are usually asked about “Workfare” or “Unpaid Work Experience”, they have carte blanche to refer only to the Work Experience programme, to which a minority of claimants are involved.
Boots were orinally founded as a Quaker business. Companies like Rowntree, Cadbury, WH Smiths and other household and High Street names of similar origins were based on the value of labour in capitalist society, paying their workers well and providing them with welfare and housing, at a time, in the Victorian period, when most workers lived in slums and worked in slave-like conditions. Do they now want to help the Government to return to these conditions? Next they’ll be bringing back the ‘Bastilles’, or workhouses. Don’t participate in this, but use your own Trust Funds to set up voluntary schemes for returning young people to work, based on proper apprenticeships and the minimum wage.