The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Workfare casts a shadow over the Jubilee

The use of the unemployed as unpaid stewards is a symptom of a divided nation.

By George Eaton Published 05 June 2012 12:22

A security guard stands beneath a large screen in St James's Park prior to The Diamond Jubilee Concert. Photograph: Getty Images.

In his speech at last night's Jubilee concert, Prince Charles notably referred to the "difficulties and hardships" faced by many (before an unintentionally amusing reference to people proudly "lining the banks"). On the theme of hardship, then, today's Guardian reports that "A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations." Worse, they were told to sleep under London Bridge the night before the river pageant, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift.

The security firm in question, Close Protection UK, was operating under the government's Work Programme, which attempts to make jobseekers more employable by offering them "work experience" with selected companies. It's important to note that the programme is voluntary and does not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits. But it's not hard to see why the story has provoked such outrage this morning. There is something Dickensian about the unemployed sleeping under London Bridge in order to guard a hereditary monarch. Blogger Eddie Gillard (who first broke the story) reports that "some had been told they would be paid for working and that they should 'Sign Off' benefits before starting, which turned out to be a falsehood, mistake or lie, I cannot say which." Given that the government allocated £1.5m for stewarding, it is unclear why some were left unpaid.

The hope in Downing Street is that the "feel-good-factor" created by the Jubilee will improve the Tories' dismal poll ratings (one poll yesterday put them 16 points behind Labour). It may yet do so. The Guardian's story was not picked up by the BBC or the Times, both in full royalist cry. But the accounts of workfare are a symptom of why Cameron will find it so difficult to rally an increasingly divided nation behind him.

Update: The BBC have belatedly covered the story under the guise of "Prescott urges inquiry into Jubilee work experience claims".

Tags: Monarchy Welfare

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

19 comments

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:14 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Thu, 2012-07-05 22:19 — ahmadnasr89

صور رمضان 2012
تحميل صور رمضان 2012
صور رمضانية 2012
نتيجة الثانوية العامة 2012

Wed, 2012-06-06 13:10 — Des Demona (not verified)

if this is an example of work experience given to those people I'd be surprised if any of them were impressed by the prospect. Real jobs with real pay and conditions are what is needed not slave labour so some businesses can make a quick buck.

Wed, 2012-06-06 12:12 — Eric Dignam (not verified)

Tomorrow's People is a charity that charitably provides a free recruitment service for business employers according to their website. How many of this charity's senior executives are volunteers?

Wed, 2012-06-06 11:13 — bexhillscrote (not verified)

The capitalists have never forgiven William Wilberforce for making them pay their workers.

Wed, 2012-06-06 02:08 — marimo (not verified)

"The Work Programme is NOT voluntary, it is a mandatory programme for the unemployed. Other than that, good article. "

This is true. There's a young girl straight out of education working at my sister's place of employment (a large discount supermarket) and she does exactly the same job at nearly full-time hours just so she can receive JSA. It might be marginally better if she worked in a role with some wider social value (like charity work) but she works at a company that only really exists to make a profit. The whole thing makes a mockery of volunteer work, it's free labour for the company plain and simple and I think it's utterly disgusting.

Wed, 2012-06-06 11:17 — bexhillscrote (not verified)

I know a girl of 17 who works for a wellknown chain of junkfood purveyors. She has to go online and bid for her shifts!
What's next? Feeing in the marketplace?

Tue, 2012-06-05 23:26 — Rev Graeme Hancocks (not verified)

Good the NS covering this issue. Wealthy people being serviced by people sleeping under a bridge in the rain with not toilet facilities. You couldnt make it up. I doubt the Queen will have this story brought to her attention. If it ever were, she and her flunkies she feel deeply ashamed.

Tue, 2012-06-05 21:13 — muttlee

"It's important to note that the programme is voluntary and does not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits"

This is not true. The Work programme is mandatory*,Workfare is mandatory,signing to agree not to be bound by the minimum wage regulations is mandatory. It is true that some of the participants of 'The London Bridge incident' were on apprenticeships. However this is quite different from the rest,who were jobseekers,rounded up by coach in the West Country and forced to work for free [after being lied to that they would be paid],without sleep the previous night left shivering under a bridge at 3 in the morning,then working outdoors for up to 18 hours in very bad conditions. with no toilet facilities. The real shame should be on the company that presumably got paid for this,relying on unpaid workfare slaves to police the Jubilee events. If you can't see something wrong here,you need your moral compass adjusting with a large mallet.

*'Mandatory' as in: If you refuse to work for free on workfare schemes your benefits can be suspended for up to two years,leading to destitution and homelessness. A Labour scheme by the way.

Tue, 2012-06-05 18:22 — Herbert (not verified)

Why doesn't the NS recognise unions for collective bargaining?

Tue, 2012-06-05 18:19 — yorkshireman (not verified)

Why no coverage by the BBC ? here's why :http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31417.htm

Tue, 2012-06-05 17:54 — Michael Petek (not verified)

If they have been told they would be paid for working, then there is a contractual promise. Since no wage was stipulated, they can demand a fee on their own terms and sue for it if it isn't paid.

Tue, 2012-06-05 16:33 — Robert Taggart

Makes this Republican Scrounger glad to live too far from 'the big smoke' !

Tue, 2012-06-05 15:43 — Barrie J (not verified)

This is absolutely disgusting and the utterly craven, sycophantic and worthless BBC need a good kicking for not highlighting it.
When is someone going to get a grip of this bloated monster?
They are fast morphing into Fox News.

Tue, 2012-06-05 15:21 — cheat-island.com (not verified)

Salut Ces Zak (Utilisateur de cheat-island)
Vous avez besoin D'un Cheat Diablo 3 ?

Rendez-vous sur : http://cheat-island.com/

Les cheat son recement mis a jour pour réster indétectable.

Tue, 2012-06-05 15:05 — RichardSmith21 (not verified)

The Work Programme is NOT voluntary, it is a mandatory programme for the unemployed. Other than that, good article.

Tue, 2012-06-05 14:02 — New statesmanMartyn (not verified)

The Work Programme is NOT voluntery and never has been.

Tue, 2012-06-05 14:01 — MrH (not verified)

This is a very alarming story and I'm glad it's being taken seriously. Unemployment is high and using unpaid labour puts people who need a job out of work. Free labour might help companies who use it undercut other companies who hire ethically, therefore reducing standards across the board. Free labour makes a profit for shareholders at the expense of the very poorest. I refuse to believe that non-skilled stewarding work provides meaningful 'training' - and it certainly doesn't provide the steward with such valuable skills that they don't need to be paid for it. I am very angry at the way in which the minimum standards of how employees should be treated are eroded by incidents like this is. The fact that behaviour like this is being sanctioned by government-endorsed schemes is appalling.