Keep Volunteering Voluntary

When we are thinking of making a charitable donation, I believe it is important to make sure that the charity or non-profit organisation we are giving to is not involved in things we find abhorrent.

One of the things I find abhorrent is the widespread use of forced unpaid labour under government mandated "Workfare" schemes. Unfortunately many charities and non-profit organisations have decided to involve themselves in these forced labour schemes by accepting free labour under the Tories economically destructive "work for free or suffer absolute destitution" regime.

You can read some of my critiques on Workfare here and here, and you can read an article proposing a fairer welfare system here.

Keep Volunteering Voluntary

Several charities have resolved to carry on supporting this forced labour regime (despite the criticism), however hundreds have seen sense and publicly distanced themselves from these draconian schemes.

There is an easy way to check that the good cause you're supporting refuse to involve themselves in forced labour schemes. Keep Volunteering Voluntary (KVV) have created a list of organisations who have signed their agreement.

This is what their agreement says:

"As charities and voluntary organisations we know the value of volunteering. Volunteering means people independently choosing to give their time freely to help others and make the world a better place. Workfare schemes force unemployed people to carry out unpaid work or face benefit sanctions that can cause hardship and destitution.  We believe in keeping volunteering voluntary and will not participate in government workfare schemes."

The list of signatories is here

What to do if a charity or voluntary group is not on the list

If you're planning to make a charitable donation don't assume that because your favoured charity/voluntary group is not on the list that this means that they are guilty of exploiting forced labour.

Many voluntary organisations may not even be aware of the Keep Volunteering Voluntary agreement.

The best course of action would be to contact the organisation and ask them directly if they exploit forced labour.

If they don't use forced labour you could suggest that they should sign the Keep Volunteering Voluntary agreement so that they can be listed as a proper voluntary organisation on their website (here is the link to do that).
If they do use forced labour, you could tell them that you support their work, but that you won't be making any more donations to their cause until they terminate their involvement in forced labour schemes.

If you are directly involved with a charity or voluntary organisation that is not on the list, you should establish that they are not involved, and if this is the case, make sure they sign the Keep Volunteering Voluntary agreement so that they can be listed as a proper voluntary organisation on their website (here's that link again).

If it turns out that your organisation has been involved in exploiting forced labour you should try to do something about it. As someone within the organisation you have much more power to change their practices than someone on the outside. If the organisation fears losing their genuine long-term volunteers, they're much more likely to stop accepting the forced labour supplied to them by the government.

Conclusion

In my view it is a complete outrage that organisations that consider themselves to be charities and voluntary groups continue to use forced labour.

Direct action is one of the best things we can do to pressurise such organisations to terminate their involvement with such schemes. If we refuse to donate our money or our time until they cease involvement, they're a hell of a lot more likely to stop than if we do nothing.

Keep Volunteering Voluntary are doing a really good job of helping charitable people make informed decisions about their charitable donations, and you can help them by making sure that charities and voluntary organisations that deserve to be on their list are on their list.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, it would be massively appreciated.

MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
12 things you should know about the Tories "Help to Work" forced labour schemes
           
Why do so many right-wing people support Stalinist Workfare forced labour schemes?
                     
A letter to fans of Workfare
       
What is ... Universal Basic Income?
                             
Basic Income vs the current welfare system
                                         
Basic Income from a libertarian perspective
                          
Why you should sign petitions
                
Why I want you to question everything - even me
                      

How the TTIP corporate power grab is the biggest current threat to UK sovereignty
                                
How I overcame social anxiety to become a successful political writer
  

Esther McVey's "attitude tests" and Tory backwards thinking

The Tory Minister of State for employment has announced a new scheme to impose "attitude tests" on unemployed people.

These attitude profiling tests would attempt to judge whether unemployed people are "determined", "bewildered" or "despondent" about taking a job. The results of the tests will be used to "segregate" them into different classes of jobseeker, those that are keen to work, and those who are "scum" to be abused and sanctioned until they drop off the unemployment figures.
Before I get to the explanation of how this ludicrous policy demonstrates Tory backward thinking, I'd first like to note that the inspiration for attitude testing is the Australian work of a private company called Ingeus, which was owned by Thérèse Rein (the wife of former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd) before she sold it off earlier this year for around $220 million.

Given the Tory model of outsourcing the functions of the social security system to private companies in order to siphon off an ever increasing proportion of the welfare budget into the profits of private companies, it's almost certain that a company such as Ingeus, or one of the alphabet soup of other parasitical outsourcing companies (A4e, G4S, Atos, Serco, Capita, Seetec, Avanta) will end up with lucrative taxpayer funded contracts to carry out these sham "attitude tests". Just as they've picked up lucrative £multi-million contracts to administer the hopelessly failing and fraud riddled Work Programme and the "Help to Work" forced labour schemes.

The clear problem with the concept of "attitude tests" for the unemployed is the fact that the information obtained will be of so little use.

• What is the point of paying a fortune to a private company to establish the attitude of a kid who has only ever experienced paid work on extremely exploitative and low paid Zero Hours contracts and actually spent most of their working life doing unpaid forced labour schemes? Of course they're going to be "despondent" and "resistant to work". 

• What is the point of paying a fortune to a private company to find out that a person with a long employment history in decent jobs who has briefly fallen on hard times is "determined" to find another decent job?

• What is the point of paying a fortune to a private company to report that a person suffering severe mental disabilities who has been thrown off disability benefits as a result of the unlawful and discriminatory WCA regime for disabled people, and then been forced to look for work they are clearly incapable of doing, is "bewildered"?

In my view a much more useful approach would be to attempt to find out what value these people have, rather than trying to classify what is wrong with them. Instead of a ridiculous privately administered attitude test, I'd like to see the DWP launch an in-house standard aptitude test.

Such an aptitude test would attempt to establish the individual skillset of each Jobseeker. by assessing things like memory, reading, maths, critical thinking skills, manual dexterity, problem solving skills, stamina, reaction times, patience, concentration etc. This would allow suitable people and employers to be directed towards each other. It would also give people a very clear idea of what their skills and abilities are, and where they need to make improvements.
Other than the huge difference in the quality and usefulness of the information obtained, the big difference between these proposed Tory attitude tests, and a comprehensive aptitude test is the motivation behind them.

The kind of Aptitude test I've described works on the assumption that each person has a set of values, and that it beneficial to all of us if the state helps them to identify their skills and find appropriate employment.

Esther McVey's Attitude tests work on a very different assumption: The assumption that the unemployed are mainly "scum with bad attitudes". Her test is about attempting to find out what is wrong with them, and using draconian measures to force them to change, or drive them off the unemployment figures altogether.

That Esther McVey and the Tories have got it so completely backwards illustrates the fact that they are just a bunch of opportunistic right-wing authoritarians who have no conception of what the social security system is actually supposed to be for.

As Minister of State for Employment, Esther McVey's job isn't to belittle and demean the unemployed by herding them into sham attitude assessments carried out by corporate outsourcing profiteers, then to segregate them into different grades of "scum", to be abused and threatened into unpaid forced labour schemes (which are administered by the same bunch of corporate outsourcing profiteers) under the threat of absolute destitution via social security sanctions.

The job of the Minister for Employment is to help people when they fall on hard times by providing a subsistance income, helping them to identify their strengths and weaknesses, offering them training and courses appropriate to their needs, and helping suitable employers and employees come together.
This sordid scheme once again reinforces two things that we should all know about the Tories by now: The first is that they will never ever pass up an opportunity to pump more public money into private companies. The second is that they have absolute contempt towards "the lower orders", so much so that Esther McVey imagines that it is her role to belittle, demean and punish the unemployed, rather than to actually help them in any meaningful way. 

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. 

If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, 

it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE    
    
12 things you should know about "Help to Work" forced labour schemes
               
Does the WCA regime for disabled people constitute psychological torture?
           
The "Making Work Pay" fallacy

Why do right-wing people support workfare?
     
Problem Solving with Iain Duncan Smith
       
Poverty in 21st Century Britain; a Tory comedy

Iain Duncan Smith's bizarre tirade against the Trussell Trust

The Tory ideological mission
           
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
           
The Great Neoliberal Lie