Poundland work experience case raises questions for graduates

Now that the dust has settled on the government work experience scheme case, questions remain for graduates, particularly those who have claimed or are currently claiming jobseeker’s allowance.

Recent geology graduate Cat Reilly challenged the legality of government work schemes that pay no wages.

Reilly objected to the mandatory nature of the Sector Based Work Academy Scheme, which saw her stacking shelves in Poundland, claiming that it breached Article IV of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits forced labour and slavery.

Justice Foskett, sitting at the High Court in London, rejected her claim that the initiative was comparable to modern day slavery.

He did, however, criticise the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over the lack of clarity of the letters that warn claimants of a potential loss of benefits if they fail to participate in the schemes without good reason, and called for improved clarity.

Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith said: ‘We are delighted, although not surprised, that the Judge agrees our schemes are not forced labour. Comparing our initiatives to slave labour is not only ridiculous but insulting to people around the world facing real oppression. Thousands of young people across the country are taking part in our schemes and gaining the vital skills and experience needed to help them enter the world of work – it is making a real difference to people's lives. Those who oppose this process are actually opposed to hard work and they are harming the life chances of unemployed young people who are trying to get on.’

One upshot of the case is the implications for unemployed graduates claiming jobseeker’s allowance, who will want to clarify whether any government work experience programme they are invited to attend is mandatory or not.

This also raises questions over the position of those who were stripped of their benefits for failing to participate in the work programme alone.

According to The Guardian, the law firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), who acted for Reilly and Wilson, said the issue of flawed warning letters meant that ‘tens of thousands of people stripped of their benefits must now be entitled to reimbursement by the DWP.’

Source: Targetjobs.co.uk, Wednesday 15th August 2012