Workfare in the United Kingdom
Supporters claim that such policies help people move off welfare and into employment whereas critics argue that they are analogous to slavery or indentured servitude and counterproductive in decreasing unemployment.
The Manpower Services Commission, a non-departmental public body had been created by the Heath government in the early 1970s whilst full employment existed.
[4] In November 2011, the Prime Minister's Office announced proposals under which Jobseeker's Allowance claimants who have not found a job once they have been through a work programme will do a 26-week placement in the community for 30 hours a week.
In 1999, the UK charity Child Poverty Action Group expressed concern that a government announcement that single parents and the disabled may have to attend repeated interviews for jobs under threat of losing benefits was "a step towards a US-style workfare system".
The Social Security Secretary at the time, Alistair Darling, described the plan as "harsh, but justifiable", claiming that it would help address the "poverty of expectation" of many claimants.
[9] Despite the report, Lord Jones, former Minister of State for Trade and Investment, said in April 2010 that Britain needed to adopt American-style workfare.
[13] Chris Grayling, the UK's Minister for Employment between 2010 and 2012, criticised what he called the "Polly Toynbee left", saying that they failed to understand the modern labour market.
[18] The Guardian newspaper claimed in February 2012 that businesses in the UK which take staff via "work for your benefits programmes" included Asda, Maplin, Primark, Holland & Barrett, Boots, and McDonald's.
[19] The policy is similar to that which the Conservative Party administration hoped to introduce in the mid to late 1990s, which would most likely have been carried through had John Major not been defeated by Tony Blair in the 1997 general election.
[citation needed] Critics also ascertain that the majority of menial, low paid jobs would end up being carried out by people on workfare who, because they are working but unpaid, would not be counted among the unemployment figures.
A number of organisations including Maplin, Waterstones, Sainsbury's, TK Maxx and the Arcadia Group withdrew from the scheme in early 2012.
[7][24] Clothing retailer Matalan subsequently suspended its involvement in the scheme in order to conduct a review of the terms of such placements, with a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions saying "The scheme is voluntary and no one is forced to take part and the threat of losing the benefit only starts once a week has passed on the placement - this was designed to provide certainty to employers and the individuals taking part"[25] In response, Employment Minister Chris Grayling stated to BBC Radio 4 that workfare programs were voluntary and accused the Socialist Workers' Party of false campaigning.
[29] However, the appeal decision was made primarily on technical grounds, and the judge found no breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[citation needed] Home Retail Group, the parent company of Argos and Homebase, were also widely criticised for their involvement in Workfare.
A key moment for those who opposed Workfare was when a poster produced for internal purposes by Homebase indicating that unpaid work in the scheme was a way of reducing operating costs was leaked to the public.
