GMB Backs Privatisation and Work Programme. Then Backs Down… ?
US protests Against their System Report Ignores.
Andy Newman on Socialist Unity accuses critics of the GMB of using “remarkable” and “intemperate” language (Here).
What is this dispute about?
It’s this document:
The road to work and opportunity,in the 21st century empowered, employed, enriched: opening doors to work and benefitting the nation Jim Gee, Mark Button, Andy Bain, David Pritchard.
In this report the GMB (General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union) appeared to back the Government’s ‘contracting out’ (privatisation) of Job Centres and the Work programme (placing the unemployed in unpaid ‘work’) – here.
I can assure the GMB that this incident has not passed unnoticed by by senior figures in other unions.
In particular this proposal, which will put private companies into Job Centres.
“having a presence for welfare to work providers in Job Centres to enable assistance to be provided..”
Here is how the report concludes:
“The Work Programme should be embraced as providing an opportunity for huge flexibility – a never before chance to provide tailored, individual support for customers to meet their needs and employers needs. Attention should be focused upon refining the Work Programme, alongside other initiatives, to maximise its potential. The series of recommendations contained in this report – and repeated below – are rooted in extensive research and should be considered as a series of adjustments which could bring out the best in this initiative. As the case studies in this report testify – unemployment is no ‘bowl of cherries’and it is vital that all is done to avoid this waste of humantalent, to the benefit of all in society.
Amongst its recommendations on how to make this scheme work we find this:
“The Government should review the experience of JobStat and VendorStat in New York with a view to developing such a model in the UK.”
America Works is also cited as a model here.
The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty reports (via Indymedia),
A report produced by the University of Portsmouth and accountancy firm PKF Welfare to Work in the 21st Century is based in part it says on interviews with “23 clients from difficult to employ groups: 18 of who were identified via Kennedy Scott and 5 via the GMB”. Kennedy Scott is an employment training provider currently delivering the New Deal programme for the Department for Work and Pensions in London and the South East. The report recommends that “the Department for Works and Pensions pilots a US welfare-to-work programme developed by America Works.”, the US workfare company known for the draconian regime it imposes on its unemployed “clients”. (here.)
As Louise remarked, (here)
Firstly, a trade union working in partnership with a private company that is one of the uk’s leading firms of accountants and business advisers and specialises in advising the management of developing private and public businesses. we pride ourselves on creating and sustaining supportive relationships where objective and timely advice enables our clients to thrive and develop.
WTF!!!!
Secondly, why is a trade union involved and not only that is supporting a pilot based on America Works draconian welfare to work? Why oh why oh why…?! How can a trade union not only be involved with a private welfare to work provider supporting workfare and peddle and spin the so-called wonders of welfare to work. And calling America Works… “innovative” (the language of the corporate that sullies and damages and ultimately destroys public services). More accurate descriptions would be retrograde and regressive.
WTF!!!
Thirdly, why were criminologists involved in this research? Are they saying there’s a relationship between unemployed and criminality? Well, I will say this the ideological attacks on the poor intends to criminalise people!
Tony Greenstein reports that the union has now distanced itself from the report – here.
When Paul Kenny says therefore, in the e-mail correspondence below, that ‘The report you refer to was not ours nor did we endorse it or support the type of comments quoted.
I have written to kennedy scott making it clear we do not support private companies in these services nor do we support welfare to work or their views.
I have made my views clear about anyone using our logo or implying our support for Welfare to work.’I am happy to accept his word. What is more troubling is that a Report such as this was not even read, as I suspected, by Paul Kenny. ‘I had not read or seen the document until this all came to light and I have tried to ensure that the GMB position is explained to all who seek clarification.’
Why was this report ever there?
Tendance Coatesy 
Totally agree Andrew.
“Why was this report ever there?”
Absolutely!
Paul Kenny’s explanation just creates more confusion and more questions than answers. Doesn’t anyone check when and what for the GMB logo is use for? That for starters. Who from GMB called America Works ‘innovative’….?
harpymarx
May 24, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Louise I was just talking about this to my local comrades after the funeral of a beloved local councillor and trade unionist.
There are a lot of people who are very concerned.
There are E-Mails going round from senior union activists expressing dismay at the report.
Andrew Coates
May 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm
The full report is here, http://is.gd/krqM0G
and if Bro Kenny new nothing about it he bloody well should have done, as along with Kennedy Scott it has the GMB logo prominently on the reports front page. he should demand all mention of the GMB be removed from the report as it does not endorse it.
Mick Hall
May 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm
It is clever. The government get to massage the unemployment figures. Some corporations get a huge source of virtually free labour. The value of labour itself is decimated even further. There’s the potential to axe more Civil Service jobs. The government can say they’re doing it to address the unemployment problem; at least they’re doing something, unlike the previous government. The public that seem to have swallowed the anti-benefit propaganda as much as any form of propaganda will actually support it enthusiastically. And many people will support the axing of Civil Service jobs, and derisively snort that they didn’t really do anything, anyway. All the people that manage to keep a job and a place in the ever receding middle-class don’t give a fuck about anyone other than themselves and their consumption and standard of living, anyway, and just carry on as normal, with possibly even more reason to whinge sanctimoniously about the service they receive in supermarkets. The people for whom it has a negative impact don’t get any stake in society anyway, and very few people give a toss what they think or how they’re treated. Until they’re part of that group themselves. And, of course, unemployment will definitely get higher, because where is the incentive to create new jobs, when you’ve got a virtually unlimited supply of free labour? Especially when you consider that most new jobs created are low-skilled and low-paid. They’re going to be a darned sight more low-paid from now on.
I saw this coming 4-5 years ago when I used to work for the DWP, and it doesn’t surprise me at all, but it is still horrifying to witness. Not just because of what it represents – it is essentially slavery by another name – but because I know that I will hear many, many people saying that it’s a good thing, and that they’re in favour of it. That’s how divided and self-absorbed we’ve become.
WUB
May 25, 2011 at 10:16 pm
The only thing WUB is that slave labour is not very productive.
Nobody is going to trust anyone on these schemes to do serious jobs.
I am particularly concerned, as Mick says, that the GMB has its logo on this ‘report’ – more than a symbol it’s an endorsement.
Andrew Coates
May 26, 2011 at 11:04 am
[…] with them. We hope the vote at the GMB congress marks a definitive break in the union’s policy: in the past they have promoted workfare. We hope that the GMB will commit its resources and energy to […]
Boycott Workfare » Blog Archive » The Facts About Boycott Workfare and the Unions
June 17, 2013 at 6:27 pm
[…] with them. We hope the vote at the GMB congress marks a definitive break in the union’s policy: in the past they have promoted workfare. We hope that the GMB will commit its resources and energy to […]
Birmingham Trades Council » The Facts About Boycott Workfare and the Unions
June 18, 2013 at 3:05 am