Framework Anti-Workfare & work-prog Demo
Published:
June 10, 2013 16:24
by Tash [Alan Lodge] |
Neighbourhoods: nottingham
2.00pm Saturday 1st June 2013
Campaigners from Nottingham Against Workfare protested outside record shop Music Exchange, in Stoney Street, Nottingham.
The Music Exchange is a social enterprise founded by Framework. It is now operated by Eve Trades, a social enterprise established by the charity in 2012
The Nottingham homelessness charity, Framework, has admitted that it is involved in the Work Programme. This is one of the schemes known collectively as workfare, where unemployed people are forced to do unpaid work or face losing their benefits.
Under pressure from anti-workfare activists, Framework announced that “we are one of the organisations who participate in delivering the work programme”. Last month, campaigners from Nottingham Against Workfare delivered a letter to Chief Executive Andrew Redfern, encouraging him to withdraw from the work programme. Local activists also called on supporters to campaign on the organisation’s social media pages.
Text of the leaflet handed out:
*****
FOR SHAME, FRAMEWORK:
Framework, a Nottingham homeless charity involved in running the Music Exchange in Hockley, has been using labour from DWP Mandatory Work Schemes to supplement their voluntary apprenticeship programmes. Claimants placed on this scheme face benefit sanctions and ultimately the loss of their homes if they do not participate. Workfare is not simply exploitative - if allowed to continue, it will exacerbate housing problems for the poorest and most vulnerable in society hugely.
Oxfam, Shelter, the homeless charity SHP, Sense and even the PDSA have refused to participate in these schemes because they feel that Workfare exacerbates social exclusion and penalises the poorest in society. SHAMEFULLY, FRAMEWORK CLAIMS THAT THIS PROJECT BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYED AND WILL REDUCE HOMELESSNESS. LET'S SHOW THEM HOW WRONG
THEY ARE.
Go to the Framework Facebook page to let them know what you think, or find the
Nottsagainst Workfare fb page for details of upcoming actions and events.
*****
Framework uses Workfare
http://nottingham.tachanka.org/articles/5639
Nottingham charity involved in workfare
http://nottingham.tachanka.org/articles/5648
Charity targeted in protest over forced work scheme
Nottingham Post
____________________________________________
ALAN LODGE
Photographer - Media: One Eye on the Road. Nottingham. UK
Email: tash@indymedia.org
Web: http://digitaljournalist.eu
Member of the National Union of Journalists [NUJ]
____________________________________________
"It is not enough to curse the darkness.
It is also necessary to light a lamp!!"
___________________________________________
<ends>
Contact email: tash@indymedia.org
Comments
An addition to the above comment
Published: June 11, 2013 08:51
by
Dec S
It's important that Framework does produce the data of not just the number of people having gone through MWA but also those that didn't complete their programme and how many of those who did not complete were referred for sanctions.
Dec S
It's all about F***work cashing in?
Published: June 11, 2013 09:08
by
Saf
They seem like reasonable questions Dec S but whilst F***work are earning £250 - 400 per 'volunteer' for providing educational/ employability training which isn't even Ofsted scrutinised it's just a case of bums on seats= ££££
Latest articles feed
Framework- time for some clearer communication
Just some thoughts to help Framework out of this embarrassing and potentially long- term damaging position its got itself in.
Framework needs to recognise people's concerns over the work programme and try a more transparent approach to address these concerns, particularly the use of MWA( Mandatory Work Activity).
If Framework were to produce the findings of it's monitoring data for MWA since it's involvement in the work programme it might give a truer reflection of the benefits/ failures of that aspect of the scheme. Simply claiming that 2000 people have been through the work programme successfully and you've not received any complaints or issues raised through the channels you use is clearly questionable and/or shows that the monitoring requirements aren't robust. There are many issue around how/ when/data or feedback is sought from service users to allow honest criticism to take place, this is something I'm also sure Framework are aware of.
As stated on their letter (pictured above) it would also be interesting to know which details of the work programme that they do not agree with? Maybe there could be a positive outcome where Framework uses it's influence and supporter network to agitate for positive changes too.
In hope,
Dec S