Three ways in which the "Bedroom tax" exposes Tory hypocrisy

In April 2013 the Tory led Coalition government will introduce a measure called "Bedroom tax", which is an absurd scheme aimed at financially penalising poor people into moving out of their homes. Social housing tenants in receipt of housing benefit will have their housing support payments reduced if they are deemed to be "under occupying" their homes. The measures are supposedly designed to save £480 million, a seemingly large sum until one considers that annual housing benefits payouts amount to £23 billion (48x the amount) and that much like all government estimates, the figure is almost certain to be a grotesquely over-optimistic calculation.

Problems with the "Bedroom tax"

The main thrust of the article will be to explain how "Bedroom tax" demonstrates Tory hypocrisy, however first I'd like to run through some of the reasons that "Bedroom tax" will prove cruel and ineffective for many reasons. This is a long, but by no means exhaustive list of reasons that the "Bedroom tax" is a terrible and malicious idea:

• A sensible strategy to increase the availability of social housing is to build more social housing. Not only would this increase the supply of decent , affordable family sized housing, it would also stimulate economic demand, since the construction of social housing is a proven high fiscal multiplier. This kind of homebuilding strategy would never happen under a Conservative government, given their burning ideological hatred of the whole concept of social housing. Instead we get bonkers schemes like "Bedroom tax".

• In many areas (especially the North of England and Scotland) there is a chronic shortage of one and two bedroom social housing. Take Hull for example:4,700 tenants are going to be affected by the "Bedroom tax" charge, but there are only 73 one or two bedroom properties available in the area. It is impossible for the vast majority of those families to find smaller accommodation, so they face no choice but to pay the "Bedroom tax". If there is nowhere available to downsize to, it becomes absolutely obvious that this scheme is simply a method of impoverishing some of society's poorest members.

• It has been estimated that the vast majority of people who are going to be effected by this tax will be families with disabled members, many of whom have had their homes specially adapted to their needs (wide doors and ramps for wheelchair access, stairlifts, adapted bathrooms and kitchens...). Forcing them out of their home because they are deemed to have a "spare bedroom" means that large amounts of money will have to be spent on making adaptations to their new smaller homes, assuming that there are even any available in their area.

• In some cases people are being penalised by "bedroom tax" even though they live in elderly supported accommodation. The only reason to evict someone from such places for the "crime" of having a spare box room would seem to be to allow wealthier social housing tenants (that can afford to pay some £500+ extra a year for a spare bedroom) to take their place, since elderly supported accommodation is not meant for families anyway.

• Another group of people effected by "Bedroom tax" will be those families with members serving in the armed forces, if they are away on duty for more than 13 weeks, their family members back home will be stung with a tax bill on account of their absence.

• Yet another group to be penalised are separated couples that have joint custody of their children. Those partners that look after the kids on the weekend or during school holidays will be stung with "Bedroom tax" penalties for supposedly under-occupying their homes. Lord Freud, one of the minsters responsible for the "Bedroom tax" scheme famously told one Scottish father that he should make his three sons share a fold-out sofa bed when they come to stay (Freud has two houses with a total of 12 bedrooms, an under-occupation rate of 91.7%).

• Only penalising those that are in social housing means that housing benefits recipients "under occupying" private rented accommodation will not be penalised. Given that the private rented sector is now larger than the social housing sector, this exclusion means that increases in the supply of family sized homes and reductions in the housing benefit bill will be severely limited.

• Owners of empty properties will remain completely unaffected. Tackling the estimated million unoccupied homes with an empty home tax would seem like a much more sensible strategy to tackle the "housing shortage" than financially penalising poor people for the "crime" of having a "spare bedroom" in the home that they occupy.

• Wealthy owners of council houses will also remain entirely unaffected, since they receive no housing benefits. A scheme that tackles "under occupation" by focusing exclusively on the most needy social housing tenants (the ones in receipt of benefits), looks a lot more like undisguised Tory malice than a scheme that is designed to achieve any specific outcome.

• Pensioners in social housing are also excluded (because the Tories certainly don't want to be seen to be attacking one of their core demographics), meaning that many really old people will be allowed to keep the 3/4/5 bedroom social houses that they don't need, whist families with disabled children will be financially penalised for the "crime" of having specially adapted bedrooms.

Tory hypocrisy

Okay, now were past some of the many arguments against this harebrained scheme, lets move on to the ways in which it clearly demonstrates Tory party hypocrisy.

Small state libertarianism
The Conservative party, and right-wingers in general, always love to dress themselves up as freedom fighting libertarians. They pretend that their desire to shrink the state is driven by an ideological objection to "state interference" both in an economic sense and in a public sense too. They pretend that they believe that the state mustn't interfere in the economy in order to allow the "invisible hand of the free market" to guide the economy to prosperity and they also pretend that they believe the state mustn't interfere in the personal lives of its citizens. "Bedroom tax" can be seen as an affront to both of these claimed principles, but especially the second one.
The rules of the bedroom tax are very specific about who should be sleeping in which bedrooms. The state dictates that the children of poor social housing tenants must sleep two to a bedroom. The only exception being children of different sexes that are over the age of ten. Thus, the state is dictating to people that their 15 year old son (who perhaps likes to masturbate a lot and suffers from BO, which would hardly be atypical), must share a bedroom with their three year old brother. There are also insisting that severely disabled children share their bedroom with siblings too (here's one example of a severely disabled and often violent 15 year old being expected to share a room with her 3 year old sister).

These aren't just examples of the state gratuitously interfering in the lives of civilians, they are interferences that in many cases have severely detrimental consequences. It is absolutely clear that the "bedroom tax" has been dreamt up by someone without the faintest regard for libertarian or minarchist principles. It looks a hell of a lot more like a vindictive campaign dreamt up by a party with an ideological loathing of social housing tenants, aimed at penalising the poorest and most needy members of society than a policy from a party that like to claim that government shouldn't interfere in our everyday lives.

Next time you hear a Tory talking up the small-state, free-market credentials of their party, just remember the

"All in it together"
"We're all in it together" was one of the coalition government's favourite soundbytes during the first year-or-so of their rule. Well the tax and benefits changes due in April this year drive a few hundred more ring annular nails through the coffin lid of that particular narrative.

Whilst millionaires are handed a whopping great annual tax cut of £50,000+, corporations are coddled with yet another tax cut and tax-dodging British companies are given their wet-dream of a tax break to help them rip off third world economies, millions of ordinary people will face huge tax hikes, through "Bedroom tax" and "Poll Tax 2.0". Not only that, the government's own research admits that 1.7 million working families will lose thousands of pounds a year because of  the introduction of Universal Credit.

The changes in April will hammer home the case that "all in it together" is a contemptible lie and that the Tories are absolutely intent on forcing the burden of austerity onto those that can afford it the least, whilst enriching, and protecting the interests of the already wealthy.

Mansion tax

Do you remember the Tory justification narrative for opposing the Lib-Dem idea of a "Mansion tax" on properties valued at over £2 million? They loved to rely on the story of a hypothetical "little old lady" in her mansion, without the means to pay the "Mansion tax". Oh how unfair it would be, they wailed, to make our hypothetical old lady downsize her home to avoid the tax or to sell off a few acres of her estate to make more than enough money to cover the "Mansion tax" payments for the rest of her life.

Yet, they are intent on forcing tens of thousands of very real people out of their homes with their "Bedroom tax" charges. Those that cannot move due to the abject lack of 1 or 2 bedroom social housing in their area, will just have to pay up, whether they can afford it or not.

This just shows the mentality of the Tories.They vehemently defend the interests of hypothetical "little old ladies" in multi-million pound mansions, whilst imposing policies that are actually designed to drive very real vulnerable people out of their homes. On the Tory scale of priorities, the interests of real poor and vulnerable people with no means to pay come miles behind the interests of hypothetical rich people, with the hypothetical means to pay a bit extra.

 Conclusion

 
I reckon that in the first section I've demonstrated that the "Bedroom tax" is an absolutely rotten idea, in fact, it's so poorly conceived that even the uber-right-wing Daily Telegraph have referred to it as "mean oppressive and a politically daft gift to the left".

In the second section I've shown how the Tory embrace and trenchant defence of the "Bedroom tax" agenda shows them up as the hypocrites they are.

Next time you hear a Tory whining about Labour or the EU insidiously trying to micro-manage our daily lives, remember that the Tories are intent on financially penalising families that believe it is in their best interests that teenage child do not share a bedroom with their three year old siblings, the father that has a spare bedroom for the days when he has custody of his own kids or the couple that need a spare bedroom because one of them is so severely disabled that they need to sleep in a special hospital bed in a room full of medical equipment.

Next time you hear a Tory as much as imply that "we're all in it together", remember that at the same time as they are launching this plan to financially penalise poor and vulnerable people out of their homes, whether alternative accommodation is available or not, they are handing a whopping great £50,000+ annual tax cut to their millionaire mates.

Next time you hear a Tory decry the idea of a "Mansion tax" or the introduction of higher council tax bands for the owners of huge properties because the hypothetical "little old lady" might suffer, remember that they have no such qualms about deliberately driving hundreds of thousands of very real poor and disabled people out of their homes or stuffing them with hundreds of pounds a year in charges for the "crime" of under-occupying their homes.

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 source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the PayPal donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE   

     
 Lord Freud: Risks, corpses and slums
      
The Back to Work Jobs Guarantee
       
   A letter to fans of Workfare
      
A coalition of LTBs
        
The Atos "disability denial factory"
    
Gaming the Work Programme
      
The Workfare ship is sinking
        

Letter to the Information Commissioner

The following is an open letter to the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham about the government's refusal to release the names of organisations involved in the DWP's mandatory unpaid "Workfare" schemes:

Dear Christopher Graham,

I am writing to you in regards to the standoff between the Information Commissioner's Office and the government, over the publication of the details of companies involved in unpaid work placement (Workfare) schemes. Several months ago it was reported in the Guardian newspaper that the government is refusing to publish the information on the grounds that "disclosure would have been likely to have led to the collapse of the MWA scheme".

I would like to explain why I believe that it is of utmost importance that the names of organisations involved in all of the unpaid "work-for-your-benefits" schemes are made public. But before I explain why I believe it is of such importance that this information is released into the public domain I would like to take a moment to explain some of the reasons for my opposition to unpaid labour schemes.

• Unlawfulness: Recently the Appeals Court ruled that most of the mandatory "work-for-your-benefits" schemes are unlawful (because they were not first approved by parliament). Simply redrawing the legislation under "emergency measures" in no way addresses the Appeal Court ruling that these schemes should be approved by parliament.
• Unfairness: I believe that all workers should be paid in accordance with the National Minimum Wage and consider these schemes to be an outright attack on the hard-won labour rights of the British public.
• Job destroyers: I believe that these schemes actually create a perverse incentive for companies to sack (and cease recruiting) paid employees in order to take advantage of free labour. This article provides a clear example of a company using free "workfare" labour to cover the Christmas rush, rather than employing paid temporary staff or providing overtime to existing staff (causing great resentment against the the poor individuals forced onto these schemes).
• Economic illiteracy: I believe that these schemes are economically illiterate because the principal driver of the consumer spending element of economic demand comes through the payment of wages. If tens, or hundreds of thousands of workers are made to work for subsistence benefits rather than actual salaries, the economic consequence is an inevitable lowering of consumer spending. Lowered consumer spending effects the retail sector more than any other. Retail outlets within a capitalist economy underpaying (or not paying) their workers is a classic example of a short-term false economy, as the retail sector is the most likely sector to suffer as a result of lowered consumer spending.
• Ineffectiveness: The DWP's own research demonstrates that these schemes do not actually help the unemployed. The conclusion that these schemes simply don't work is backed up by my own statistical research. The NIESR director Jonathan Portes described these schemes as "a complete policy disaster".
• Lack of incentive: Another complaint is that forcing unemployed people to work for no additional recompense could actually act as a strong disincentive to find work. If such schemes ensured that individuals earn at least the National Minimum Wage for their labour, these individuals would perhaps conclude that working is financially beneficial, however if they receive no additional recompense, they are likely to conclude that they are being exploited and perhaps that "working is a mug's game".

Now that I've got my objections to these unpaid labour schemes out of the way, I'll return to the specific purpose of this letter.

I believe that the government's stated reason for blocking the release of this information (that the public would boycott and picket involved organisations) actually makes the strongest case for the release of the information.

Simply keeping the information behind a veil of secrecy does not magically make the labour rights protesters go away, it just makes effective campaigning significantly more difficult. To give you an example: I am responsible for the creation of a list of companies that are allegedly involved in these mandatory unpaid "Workfare" schemes. This list contains numerous contact details and social media links which facilitate direct protest by allowing the users of the list to easily inform "workfare" beneficiary companies that they intend to boycott the store until they cease involvement in mandatory or unpaid labour schemes.

Finding the information on which companies are involved in "workfare" was extremely difficult as I had to rely on personal testimonies and the tiny amount of information that has seeped through the veil of secrecy into the public domain.

Thousands of people are using my list every day to send protest emails to the listed companies, however I am extremely concerned that I may have inadvertently listed companies that are involved in other related "work-for-your-benefits" schemes or companies that are not even involved. If there was a clear source of publicly available verified information on which companies are involved in each of the DWP's "work-for-your-benefits" schemes, social activists such as myself could effectively target companies that are involved, with no danger of catching innocent companies in the crossfire, or of making confused claims about which companies are involved in which schemes.

In my view the censoring of information in order to deliberately disrupt the inevitable public protests against your own policies is a heinous abuse of authority and runs completely contrary to the concept of open accountable governance that the Coalition were keen to emphasise with statements such as: 

"The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.
(Coalition Agreement p20, 2010)

I'm sure you would agree with me that the government's refusal to comply with your ruling that they must release this information  makes an absolute mockery of the quoted statement of intent. Not only is their refusal to publish this information an affront to the principle of public accountability and an outrageous abuse of authority, but in light of the above statement it is also yet another example of politicians willfully undermining public faith in the integrity of our political leaders.

I believe that as information commissioner you should press the case that the details of all DWP unpaid "work-for-your-benefits" schemes must be released into the public domain. I am willing and able to support you in this objective in any way that I can.

I would appreciate it if you would contact me and let me know what your plan of action is in regards to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Thomas G. Clark (journalist and social activist)

_____________________________________________________________________ 
Reply from the ICO:

As you may be aware the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued three decision notices (FS50438037, FS50438502 and FS50441818) following information requests made to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for details relating to the department’s Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) programme. In each case we have ruled that information relating to the programme should be disclosed.

While we thank you for this interest in this matter, we do not require any further evidence for the appeal hearing. The Information Commissioner will be defending his decision notices.  

You may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) to see whether you can be considered as an additional party. However they are unlikely to consider repeated requests quoting the same source. The Tribunal would therefore only consider additional evidence relating to the issues to be determined in the appeal. Contact details for the tribunal can be found on their website.

The appeal hearing has been set for 3^rd May 2013 and details on the outcome of the case will be published on the Tribunal website once a decision has been made. This will normally be four to six weeks after the original hearing date.

We hope this information proves useful and would like to thank you for your offer of support in this matter.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you can do to help

If you agree with the contents of this letter and support the request I have made to the Information Commissioner there are two main things you can do to help.

• You can send a copy of this letter to your local MP (who has a statutory obligation to respond to your comments). You can use the Parliamentary database here to quickly find their email address or other contact details.  
• You can ensure that as many people as possible see this letter and understand the case for open and accountable governance by sharing it on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.

Thank you to everyone that contributes their valuable time to doing these things to help the fight for open and accountable governance.

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 source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the PayPal donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE   

The Workfare ship is sinking

List of Workfare companies

The Back to Work Jobs Guarantee 

Iain Duncan Smith's lame Workfare propaganda
 
      A letter to fans of Workfare
  
A coalition of LTBs
    
The Atos "disability denial factory"
 
Gaming the Work Programme
    
Iain Duncan Smith's callous contempt for the dead 
     

Ian Duncan Smith's lame Workfare propaganda

As regular readers will know, I am not a big fan of the Tory Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith. Whether it's claiming tens of thousands of pounds from the taxpayer to "employ" his wife (hardly ever actually seen in the Constituency office) as an assistant or callously interrupting a tribute to dead disabled people with an angry political tirade, the man never ceases to provoke a profound sense of revulsion.

His latest nauseating performance came on the BBC Andrew Marr show where he lamely attempted to defend his farming out of the unemployed to profit making corporations via mandatory unpaid (Workfare) schemes in the wake of the Court of Appeals ruling that these schemes are "unlawful".

I'm going to go through many of the things he said in the interview explaining exactly how flawed and fallacious his arguments are (bear in mind he had five days between the court ruling and the interview to develop his defence). You can check the quotations (in red) against the embedded video below if you like.



Iain started out with an absurdly misleading description of what the Court of Appeals judgement was.

"They said that the regulations were set too wide and weren't specific enough"

Lets bypass the tautological aspect of this statement ("too wide" and "not specific enough" are different ways of saying the same thing) and move on to the fact that it is an outright misrepresentation of what the Court of Appeals actually said, which was this:

"There is a constitutional issue involved ... The loss of Jobseeker's allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed ... any scheme must be such as has been authorised by parliament."

The words of the ruling make it absolutely clear that they are not just saying that "the regulations weren't specific enough". The actual ruling is an outright condemnation of Iain Duncan Smith and the DWP for completely bypassing parliament in order to impose these unlawful mandatory unpaid labour schemes on tens of thousands of people. The judges ruled that under section 17a of the 1995 Jobseekers Act (as amended in 2009), the secretary of state could not just do as he saw fit and had to lay the details of the those programmes before parliament.

"I've already put emergency regulations down, that's ended it."

So after being criticised for bypassing parliament, Iain's solution is to bypass parliament again to impose some new "emergency regulations"? The fact that he thinks that this insidious action has "ended it" is a crystal clear demonstration of his contempt for the rule of law and his contempt for parliamentary democracy.

"I'm not going to give way on this"

This is yet another assertion of his contempt for due process. It doesn't matter what the courts of law say, or what parliament rules (if he ever does decide to do as the court instructed and subject his schemes to democratic scrutiny), Iain will never give up his vendetta against the unemployed.

"I absolutely clearly tell you this; people that think it is their right to take benefit and do nothing for it, those days are over"

This is shockingly inaccurate stuff from the guy at the head of the DWP. Anyone with the faintest understanding of unemployment benefits knows what a "Jobseeker's Agreement" is. It is a deal that in return for a pitiful subsistence income, the jobseeker will demonstrate on a regular basis that they are "actively seeking work". For decades the staff at the Jobcentre have had the power to revoke benefits if they have reason to suspect that the claimant has not been seeking work. By pretending that before he came along that the claimant could collect benefits and "do nothing for it" he is using one of the classic Tory propaganda techniques; the misleading justification narrative. The technique of convincing gullible and reactionary people into backing their policies with a simplistic story, in this instance, the invocation of entirely fictional "idle scoroungers" that think it is their right to "do nothing" in return for their benefits.

"They volunteered"

They did not volunteer, Cait Reilly was actually compelled to give up her skilled voluntary work at a museum (that she found through her own initiative) in order to do unskilled labour (stacking shelves, sweeping floors) on a non-voluntary basis. The mandatory element of these schemes is what the whole court case was about! Pretending that these Workfare schemes are purely voluntary schemes is an absurdly misleading thing to do, if they were purely voluntary, very many fewer people would be complaining and the DWP would not have ended up in court being told that their schemes are unlawful.

"We allow people to have two months in  company, work experience, just working, doing what other people would do"

Firstly, this use of the word "allowed" is another flagrant abuse of the English language. When people are compelled to undertake these schemes under the threat of destitution, "allowed" is an Orwellian word to use. More appropriate words could be "compel", "force" or "coerce".

Another utterly misleading element to this particular statement is the fact that Iain reiterates and reassures that these workfare labourers are just like ordinary workers, but neglects to mention that they get no salary for doing exactly the work that paid employees should be doing.

"It's been so successful that more than half of those kids have left benefits, it's the most successful programme we've got"

The first part relies upon the use of grotesquely manipulated statistics. If marginally more than half of these "kids" have found work the scheme is actually failing spectacularly, since the average rate of "off-flow" from benefits is much higher. The latest available labour market statistics (September - November 2012, table 9.1) show us that the natural off-flow from benefits for the 18-24 age group was 69.4% over the course of one year, and 88.2% over the course of two years. What is more, the off-flow rate for 18-24 year olds has actually slowed down dramatically since Iain's Workfare schemes were introduced. During the September - November 2009 period, under Labour, the off flow rates were 79.8% over one year and 92.0% over the course of two years. As I've stated before, there is actually a wealth of economic evidence that Iain Duncan Smith's policies are pushing ever more people into long-term unemployment.

This isn't the only criticism of this particular sentence. The conclusion is also absurd. Any scheme at all would look pretty good in comparison to Iain's other brainchild the Work Programme, which cost over £400 million to find work for just 31,240 people, well over £10,000 a pop. What is worse is that every single one of the 18 private sector contractors in the Work Programme failed to meet their absolute minimum target of getting just 5.5% of their "clients" into work. The Work Programme is going to end up costing £billions in fees to private companies, yet the outcomes so far are significantly worse than had nothing been done at all! Trying to make Workfare look "successful" by comparing it to the Work Programme is a strategy akin to making dog food look like a reasonably appetising choice of meal by making the only other choice on the menu dog excrement!

Next, Iain turned his attention on Cait Reilly, the brave young woman that got Iain's schemes ruled unlawful.

"She [Cait Reilly] says that she wasn't paid. She was paid Jobseekers Allowance by the taxpayer to do this"

Well firstly, she wasn't paid in accordance with the National Minimum Wage. If her Jobseeker's Allowance is to be considered her salary for stacking shelves and sweeping floors at Poundland, then she made less than £1.50 an hour. Does anyone really believe that that is an appropriate wage for anyone? Would you work for £1.50 an hour? Does anyone believe that working for such a pittance would improve a person's self-esteem as Iain likes to claim? Treating unemployment benefits as if they were a salary is a deliberate attempt to undermine the National Minimum Wage and an insult to anyone that has paid National Insurance contributions on the understanding that the money would be used to provide a "social safety net".

This assault on the National Minimum Wage isn't even the worst thing about it. The worst thing is that this is an outright admission that she was made to carry out menial work at Poundland (which belongs to a gigantic US based conglomerate called Warburg Pincus) at the expense of the UK taxpayer. What on earth is the man thinking? Why is he expecting people to be fine with this UK taxpayer subsidisation of a US company via schemes that revoke the labour rights of British workers?

"Most young people love this scheme"

Lets assume for a moment that this statement is true: All that would demonstrate is that today's youth are idiots that "love" being stripped of their labour rights and being compelled to work for a fraction of the statutory minimum wage.

The problem of course is that most young people don't "love this scheme", they hate it. Iain presented absolutely no supporting evidence to justify his use of the word "most". I don't have the means or the inclination to carry out a valid statistical analysis on whether young people love Workfare (do cats love having a bath?), however I can present a wealth of anecdotal evidence, which definitely trumps Iain's no evidence at all. I've spoken to dozens of people that absolutely hated these schemes, they felt exploited and abused. What is worse, some of them were even bullied by the remaining paid staff, because the paid staff saw these free-labour workers as a threat to their own jobs.

Only one young person has ever attempted to defend Workfare to me, but she knew absolutely nothing about the long and painful battle to win the labour rights she seemed happy to dismiss as unnecessary, and she was also working under the assumption that I'm opposed to voluntary work, which I'm absolutely not. I have absolutely nothing against the idea of unemployed people doing some voluntary work, in fact when I was made unemployed (many years ago) that's precisely what I chose to do to increase my skillset. The DWP forcing people to do menial work (under threat of sanctions) at profit making corporations on the other hand is immoral, unlawful and economically illiterate.

"I'm sorry, but there is a group of people out there who think they're too good for this kind of stuff."  

Iain was clearly implying that people that oppose Workfare are too uppity to do menial jobs, which is a brazen appeal to reverse snobbery. Intelligent people (some of them university educated, some of them not) are not opposed to Workfare because they don't want to do menial work, the object because they understand that these schemes are outrageous attacks on the labour rights so many of our forefathers fought and died for. People oppose workfare not because of the nature of the work, but the nature of the pay.

Just to demonstrate what a misleading story Iain Duncan Smith is painting, here's a quote from Cait Reilly:

"I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working."

IDS then went on to say this:

"Let me remind you that [former Tesco chief executive] Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves."

What Iain neglects to mention is that Terry Leahy actually got paid for stacking shelves at a supermarket. As an intelligent man, I'm fairly sure that had they expected Terry to work for them yet not paid him any salary at all, instead relying on the taxpayer to provide him a meagre subsistence payment, I'm fairly sure he would have walked away from the retail business and found himself a trade that actually paid him a living wage.

What is more, citing the boss of Tesco is a pretty poor example given that in early 2012 Tesco decided to publicly quit involvement in Workfare schemes after a spate of protests at their stores.

"The next time somebody goes in - those smart people who say there's something wrong with this - they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can't find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important - them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?" 

Again, this is a classic bit of reverse snobbery from Iain Duncan Smith. He certainly seems to have a chip on his shoulder about graduates doesn't he? Perhaps this stems from the fact that in 2002 he got caught brazenly lying about his higher education experience and qualifications on his CV.

Moving on from the gigantic chip on his shoulder; Iain's little "befuddled customer scenario" is all very interesting, supermarket logistics are certainly a fundamental part of the UK economy. However it is extremely difficult to see how this scenario represents any kind of argument in favour of the mandatory unpaid labour schemes that he is supposed to be defending. In essence he is dissembling tangentially to avoid discussing the actual fundamentals of the case: That he is determined to treat the unemployed like chattel; as a source of unpaid rightless labour often for foreign owned private sector interests (Poundland, Superdrug, Marriott Hotles, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Hilton Hotels ...).

Conclusion

So what could we possibly draw from Iain Duncan Smith's rambling commentary?

IDS certainly displays a dazzling array of fallacious argument strategies including but not limited to: A desperately misleading misinterpretation of what the Court of Appeals ruling actually said; contempt for the rule of law; contempt for parliamentary democracy; deliberately misleading statements about the preexisting benefits system; the use of "scrounger narratives"; repeated attempts to obscure the fact that these schemes are mandatory through repetition of the words "volunteer" and "voluntary"; several other Orwellian uses of language; deliberate citation of desperately misleading statistics; contempt for the National Minimum Wage; contempt for labour rights; contempt for people that have made National Insurance contributions; contempt for the UK taxpayer; unsubstantiated assertions; non-sequiturs; reverse snobbery; and tangential dissembling.

There are a number of deeply concerning things about Iain Duncan Smith's comments.

• That following the court ruling IDS had almost a week to prepare for this interview and all he could offer was a shambolic jumble of brazen propagandising, cognitive illiteracy, distraction techniques and reverse snobbery.This does not reflect at all well on his capacity to do the extremely important job he is charged with.
• That the Conservative party considers this rambling half-wit as competent enough to run a major government department suggests that they are suffering from an abject dearth of talent.
• That despite demonstrating time and again that he is entirely unfit for his job, Neo-Labour don't seem to have the political nous to nail this guy for being both too callous and too incompetent to run a major government department.
• That despite the idiocy of his comments, his words were reported in an entirely uncritical in the mainstream media (BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, surprisingly the Daily Mail was one of the few that actually allowed the slightest hint of criticism to slip into their coverage). It is absolutely shocking that political discourse is being dumbed-down to such a level and the mainstream media allow the very worst culprits like IDS to get away with such inept displays of cognitive illiteracy.

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 source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the PayPal donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE   

The Workfare ship is sinking

List of Workfare companies

The Back to Work Jobs Guarantee 
  
   A letter to fans of Workfare
  
A coalition of LTBs
    
The Atos "disability denial factory"
 
Gaming the Work Programme
    
Iain Duncan Smith's callous contempt for the dead 
    
 "Lord" Freud: Risks, corpses and slums
  
The catastrophic failure of "Osbornomics"
  

List Of Workfare Companies

This is a list of contact details I have compiled of the grasping corporations that stand accused of taking advantage of mandatory unpaid labour schemes forced onto the unemployed by the Tory government and the DWP.

Here's an article explaining how these schemes are immoral, unlawful and economically illiterate.

The reason this list has been created is that the Conservative led government have flatly refused to release details of the companies involved in the mandatory unpaid work sentencing of the unemployed despite numerous Freedom of Information requests. Their stated reason for witholding this information from the public: The mandatory work programme would "collapse" if the names were made public, due to the likelihood of protests against the organisations involved.

Please keep up the pressure on these companies by emailing them to tell them what you think of their policy of helping the Conservatives to attack labour rights and undermine the National Minimum Wage, through their involvement in these schemes.

If we, the public, don't explicitly tell these corporations that we're boycotting them, the economic impact of the boycott could just be misinterpreted by these companies as a side effect of George Osborne's self-defeating ideological austerity experiment. The more of us that take the time to explain our opposition to these schemes, the more likely it is that we will persuade these companies to cease participation in these outrageous Corporate Welfare Scrounging scams.

Please do not use these contact details to send abusive messages, doing so will undermine the case we are trying to make. The way to win the case is with good arguments, not with foul language and abuse.

For tips on what to write follow this link

For a pre-written standard letter, please follow this link

For some social media tips, please follow this link

If you are a corporate representative of one of the named companies and would like to have your company removed from the list, please follow this link for instructions

THE WORKFARE COMPANIES 
This is by no means an exhaustive list, just an attempt to name-and-shame some of the biggest corporations to have taken advantage of mandatory unpaid labour
 

A4e
This company are one of the biggest beneficiaries of Tory welfare policy. In 2011 the company turnover was £180 million (100% of it from government contracts) out of this the bosses divvied up £11 million between them. Not only do they have a catastrophic record of failing to meet minimum targets on their lucrative government contracts, and accusations of fraud against them, they have also taken to using mandatory unpaid labour too. 
Contact Details:  
Complaints form: click here
Customer Service: customerservices@a4e.co.uk
Head of Communications: kmccrory@a4e.co.uk
Media Relations Manager: jkerr@a4e.co.uk
Twitter: @officialA4e

The AA (Deny involvement using what seems to be deliberately ambiguous language)
The breakdown recovery service is actually owned by a holding group called Acromas Holdings. The AA have been accused of taking advantage of mandatory unpaid labour at the taxpayers' expense.
Contact details:
Feedback form: click here 
Customer Service: customer.service@theaa.com
Press Office: press.office@theaa.com 
Chief Executive (Acromas): Andrew.Goodsell@saga.co.uk
UPDATE: The AA deny that they have ever been involved in mandatory labour schemes, but have not confirmed or denied involvement in "so-called" voluntary schemes. We should ask them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1. The AA is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is AA company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

Arcadia
Arcadia is Philip Green's giant retail group, which is more famous for having avoided hundreds of millions of pounds in tax by paying dividends via Green's wife who is nominally resident in Monaco than for exploiting unpaid labour via Workfare. It has been reported that several stores within the Arcadia group (Topman, Topshop, Evans, Dorothy Perkins, Burton, Outfit and Wallis) have also been using forced unpaid labour. What makes this such an outrageous example is that Philip Green is happy to cost the taxpayer £millions by dodging tax on family dividends from the Arcadia Group, but then he is prepared to cash in at the other end by taking advantage of free labour in many of his stores, all paid for at the taxpayers' expense!
Contact details: 
Press relations (Arcadia Group): corporatepress@arcadiagroup.co.uk
Complaints form (Topman): Click here
Complaints form (Topshop): Click here
Complaints form (Evans): Click here
Complaints form (Dorothy Perkins): Click here
Complaints form (Burton): Click here
Complaints form (Wallis):  Click here
Customer service (Outfit): customer.service@outfitfashion.com
Twitter: @TopmanUK, @Topshop, @Dorothy_Perkins, @Burton_Menswear, @Wallis_Fashion, @EvansClothing
Press relations (Topman): topmanpress@topman.com
Press relations (Topshop): topshoppress@topshop.com
Press relations (Evans): evanspress@arcadiagroup.co.uk
Press relations (Dorothy Perkins): dorothyperkinspress@arcadiagroup.co.uk
Press relations (Burton): burtonpress@arcadiagroup.co.uk
Press relations (Wallis): wallispress@arcadiagroup.co.uk
Press relations (Outfit): outfitpress@arcadiagroup.co.uk   


Argos (Admit involvement in unpaid labour schemes)
The familiar high street chain Argos is actually a subsidiary of the giant Home Retail Group that also own Homebase and brands including Alba, Bush, Habitat and Hygena. I'm sure they'd be keen to hear your concerns about their use of mandatory unpaid labour.
Contact Details:  
Business email: info@argos.co.uk
Corporate responsibility (HRG): gordon.bentley@homeretailgroup.com, corporate.responsibility@homeretailgroup.com
Media relations (HRG): media.relations@homeretailgroup.com

Managing director: john.walden@argos.co.uk
Twitter: @Argos_Online
UPDATE: Argos have confirmed that they are involved in unpaid work-for-your-benefits schemes, however they contest that they are not the mandatory type, however anyone that quits the scheme can still be sanctioned for up to three years, meaning that if anyone is tricked into enrolling on such schemes, the taxpayer is funding Argos with free labour and the participant has ability to quit without facing destitution. 

Asda
Asda is one of the big four supermarkets in the UK. They are owned by the US supermarket giant Walmart. Asda's own website admits involvement in unpaid "work-for-your-benefits" schemes. Here's what they say "If you are long-term unemployed and are on Job Seekers Allowance, you can still claim your benefit while having weeks of valuable work experience" The only form of payment these poor "workfare" workers can expect is that each day Asda will give them "feedback on how they're doing".
Asda contact form: Click here
Twitter: @Asda
Facebook: Asda
Walmart contact form: Click here
Walmart Twitter: @Walmart
Walmart Facebook: Walmart

B&Q 
B&Q is a large UK based multinational home improvement retailer which turned over in excess of £4.4 billion in 2010 and made a profit of £161 million. This hasn't stopped them from taking advantage of forced unpaid labour, with reports of several B&Q outlets relying on unemployed people serving Workfare sentences to carry out menial tasks. B&Q is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kingfisher Plc, which turned over more than £10 billion in 2012 and made profits of £639 million.
Contact details:
Contact form: Click here
Twitter: @BandQ
Facebook: B&Q
Customer enquiries (Kingfisher): customerenquiries@kingfisher.com
Media (Kingfisher): pressenquiries@kingfisher.com
Corporate Responsibility (Kingfisher): corporateresponsibility@kingfisher.com
Twitter (Kingfisher): @KingfisherPlc

BT 
The once-upon-a-time national telecommunications provider has, since privatisation, morphed into one of the largest and most profitable telecommunications companies in the world with 2011-12 revenue of almost £19 billion. This hasn't stopped them from exploiting rightless, wageless workers supplied at the taxpayers' expense by the DWP.
Contact details:
Press office: newsroom@bt.com
Corporate responsibility: yourviews@bt.com
Chief Executive: ian.livingston@bt.com
Twitter: @BT UK 
Facebook: BT Lets Talk

Carrillion
Carillion has grown into one of the largest construction groups in Europe since it was formed through a demerger from Tarmac in 1999. The company had a turnover of over £5 billion in 2011 and it is so large that it brought up and subsumed the once iconic Alfred McAlpine construction group. This financial might has not stopped them from taking advantage of free, rightless labour provided by the DWP at the taxpayers' expense.
Contact details: 
Enquiries: enquiry@carillionplc.com
Press Office: rik.kendall@carillionplc.com 
Government affairs: anne.toms@carillionplc.com
Chief Executive: richard.howson@carillionplc.com
Twitter: @Carillionplc

Debenhams (Admit involvement in unpaid labour schemes)
Debanhams has 165 stores across the UK and Ireland and has a turnover of £2.2 billion. They too have been taking advantage of wageless, rightless workers supplied by the DWP at the taxpayers' expense.
Contact details:
Press Office: press.office@debenhams.com 
Customer services: customerrelations@debenhams.com 
Company secretary: company.secretariat@debenhams.com (Paul Eardley)
Twitter: @Debenhams
Facebook: Debenhams - the official page 
UPDATE: Debenhams have confirmed that they are involved in unpaid work-for-your-benefits schemes, however they contest that they are not the mandatory type. We should ask them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1. Debenhams is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Debenhams company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...


Greggs the Baker (Admit involvement in unpaid labour schemes, claim policy is now under review)
Famous for supplying junk food to the masses since 1952. They now have more stores in the UK than the Multinational giant McDonalds. Greggs pulled in revenues of over £700 million in 2011, but that hasn't stopped them from exploiting those unfortunate enough to find themselves without a job in these austere times. This use of unpaid labour seems to contradict their value of "fairness", which, according to their website involves "avoiding favouritism". I'd say that paying some of your employees a wage, whilst expecting others to work for no pay is a glaring example of favouritism, wouldn't you?
Contact details:
Feedback form: click here
Chief Executive: ken.mcmeikan@greggs.co.uk
Twitter: @GreggstheBaker
Facebook: Greggs the Bakers
UPDATE: Greggs have responded to numerous questions on their Facebook page that all of their "work-for-your-benefits" placements are "voluntary" and that they have a number of people "currently working through this system". I've asked them whether these "voluntary placements" are paid at the National Minimum Wage, or if the cost of their subsistence covered by the taxpayer through the payment of Jobseekers Allowance? We should ask them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1.Greggs is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Greggs company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...
PS, credit is at least due to Greggs for the fact that they have at least responded to the concerns of their customers, unlike other corporate Facebook pages that have mass deleted similar messages. 
  
Hilton Hotels (Deny involvement using ambiguous language)
Hilton hotels is one of the largest hotel groups in the world, a subsidiary of the United States based Blackstone Group LP, a gigantic financial services company which specialises in leveraged buyouts (loading up a company with debt in order to fund its own purchase, often followed by asset stripping and outsourcing of jobs). In 2010 Blackstone recorded assets of nearly $19 billion and revenues of over $3 billion, their chief executive Stephen A Schwarzman paid himself something in the region of £750 million in 2011. Despite this they still feel the need to profit on the misfortune of others by using mandatory unpaid labour supplied by the DWP. Do you wonder why the Tories are so keen to boost the profits of this US based company by providing them free labour at the UK taxpayers' expense?
Contact details:
Feedback form: click here
Press office: press.office@hilton.com
Twitter: @HiltonWorldwide
Facebook: Hilton Hotels & Resorts 
Enquiries (Blackstone): info@blackstone.com
UPDATE: In email responses Hilton Hotels deny involvement in one particular scheme (MWA) but do not mention any of the various other schemes that are collectively known as "workfare". We should keep up the pressure by asking them them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1. Hilton Hotels is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Hilton Hotles company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...
 

Marriott Hotels (Deny involvement, awaiting official public statement)
Marriot is another US based hotel group accused of exploiting unemployed people at the expense of the UK taxpayer. Marriot had revenues of $12.3 billion in 2011 but despite this they still couldn't resist a few freebies from the UK taxpayer.
Contact details:
Feedback form: click here
President/CEO: arne.sorenson@marriott.com  
Twitter: @Marriott Hotels, @MarriotUK
Facebook: Marriott Hotels & Resorts 
UPDATE: Marriot have been responding to emails with emails containing the following statement. "It is our company policy that all employees are paid at least the national minimum wage.  Marriott does not participate in the U.K. government administered workfare schemes." If we could get them to make a public announcement to that effect it would be great and they could be taken off the list.

McDonalds (Admit involvement in unpaid labour schemes)
Everyone knows McDonalds, the gigantic fast food outlet with mind-boggling revenues of $27.5 billion in 2012 and assets of almost £33 billion. To put this into context, if McDonalds was a country they would fit between Paraguay and Cameroon as the 96th richest nation on earth. McDonalds have already shown that they care about public perception by rejecting the Olympic tax-dodge after a social networking revolt led by the protest website 38 Degrees. If enough people expressed their outrage at McDonalds exploitation of rightless and wageless labourers supplied by the DWP at the taxpayers expense, We should be confident that they would cease involvement in such schemes in order to protect their precious "brand image".
Contact details:
Feedback form: click here
UK Press office: pressoffice@uk.mcd.com 
Twitter: @McDonalds
Facebook: McDonalds, McDonalds UK
UPDATE: McDonald's admit that they are involved in so-called voluntary "workfare" schemes. We should keep up the pressure by asking them them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1. McDonalds is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is McDonalds company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

Pizza Hut (Claim to have ceased involvement)
Pizza Hut is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US food and drinks giant Yum Brands, a company that recorded 2011 Revenues of $12.6 billion Yet another giant US based multinational that are accused of exploiting unpaid labourers at the expense of the UK taxpayer.  
(NOTE: I originally stated that the owners of Pizza Hut were Pepsico, that information was way out of date. Apologies for the error).
Contact details:
Feedback form (global): click here 
UK feedback form: click here
UK press office: pizzahut@lexisagency.com 
Twitter: @pizzahut, 
Facebook: Pizza Hut, Pizza Hut - UK
Contact details (Yum!): webmaster@yum.com
Twitter: @yumbrands
Facebook: Yum! Brands
UPDATE: Pizza Hut have claimed that they are no longer involved in "workfare" schemes. We should keep up the pressure by asking them them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1. Pizza Hut is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Pizza Hut company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

Poundland (Deny involvement using ambiguous language)
During Cait Reilly's successful case against the DWP, her experience of being unlawfully forced to give up her voluntary work to stack shelves and sweep floors at Poundland for no pay became one of the most oft cited examples of Workfare "Corporate Scrounging". Poundland is one of the biggest users of rightless, wageless workers provided by the DWP at the taxpayers' expense. The company have made misleading statements on withdrawing from the mandatory work schemes, however they still admit to using unpaid labour. What a lot of people don't know is that Poundland is actually owned by the US based private equity fund Warburg Pincus. Yet another US company cashing in on free labour paid for by the UK taxpayer.
Contact details:
Feedback form: click here
Press centre: poundland@bottlepr.co.uk 
Chief Executive (Warburg Pincus): egustafson@warburgpincus.com 
Twitter: @poundland
Facebook: Poundland UPDATE: Poundland have been denying (in ambiguous terms) that they are involved. They have also taken to deleting questions and comments about their involvement in"workfare" from their Facebook page.
 
Poundstretcher (Deny involvement using ambiguous language)
Poundstretcher is another company that allegedly makes use of free labour provided by the DWP. The company is entirely owned by Aziz Tayub through a parent company called Crown Crest Group, of which he is the 100% shareholder. The Malawian immigrant has been described by an unnamed retail peer as "a very private man who likes to keep out of the media spotlight".  I'm fairly convinced that this man, who built his fortune from a single cornershop in Leicester might be fairly easy to convince, given sufficient public pressure, to distance himself from these mandatory unpaid labour schemes.
Contact details:
Customer support: customer.care@poundstretcher.co.uk
Twitter: @poundstretcher1
Facebook: Poundstretcher
UPDATE: Poundstretcher have responded with claims that they have never been involved in the "specific scheme" mentioned and that it is a case of "mistaken identity" with Poundland. The problem with this response is that Workfare is not a "specific scheme" it is a generic name for a bunch of unpaid work-for-your-benefits schemes, making the Poundstretcher response more than a bit ambiguous. We should keep up the pressure by asking them them to confirm (in an unambiguous press release or public statement) whether either of the following statements are true: 1. Poundstretcher is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Poundstretcher company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

Primark
The Boycott Workfare group exposed Primark as a company that takes advantage of free labour under these mandatory work schemes. Primark gets free labour to cut costs and increase their profits, whilst the taxpayer carries on footing the bill for the workers' unemployment benefits. One of the most disappointing things about Primark's involvement in these unlawful mandatory work schemes is that they make a great deal of their Ethical Trading stance on their website. Primark is a subsidiary of Associated British Foods who are more famous for their food brands such as Allinson flour, Silver Spoon sugar, Twinings tea, Patak's curry pastes, Ryvita biscuits, Ovaltine and Kingsmill bread. ABF had revenues of over £11 billion in 2011 and made a profit of £577 million, plenty enough to pay the statutory minimum wage to their trainees and employees.
Contact details:
General enquiries: enquiries@primark.co.uk
Facebook: Primark
Contact form (Associated British Foods): click here
General enquiries (ABF): info@abfood.com

Serco 
This company has been described by the Guardian as "the biggest company you've never heard of". They are one of the biggest outsourcing companies in the UK running all kinds of operations from privatised prisons to a 33% stake in the British Nuclear Weapons programme. They had revenues of over £4.6 billion in 2011 and recorded profits of over £175 million, this hasn't stopped them from taking advantage of mandatory unpaid labour though.
Contact details:
General enquiries: generalenquiries@serco.com
Corporate responsibility: corporateresponsibility@serco.com 
UK Media relations office: charles.carr@serco.com
Twitter: @SercoGroup 
Facebook: Serco Global Services

Shoe Zone (Claim to have quit "the scheme", 2 statements remain unconfirmed)
Shoe Zone is a retail outlet (which includes the Stead & Simpson shoe stores too) with 800 stores, over 5,000 employees and an annual turnover of over £500 million. They have their own charitable trust called the Shoe Zone trust which donates to a range of charities, which suggests that they perhaps take corporate social responsibility quite seriously. One imagines that they may be prepared to act swiftly to quit to Workfare scheme if they receive a large number of complaints.
Contact details:
General enquiries: info@shoezone.com
Press Office: shoezone@bottlepr.co.uk
General enquiries (Stead & Simpson): info@steadandsimpson.com
Twitter: @ShoeZone
Facebook: Shoe Zone

UPDATE: This is the latest copy n' paste from Shoe Zone: "Following feedback from you and other Shoe Zone customers, we have reviewed our involvement with the DWP’s work experience programme and wanted to let you know that we’ve decided not to participate in the scheme", which is good. However it wopuld be even better if we could get them to confirm these two simple statements:. 1. Shoe Zone is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Shoe Zone company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

The Works
The Works is a discount book chaim with over 300 outlets in the UK. They are owned by the Leeds based private equity group Endless LLP. Endless describe themselves as a "transformational investor" and boast about having revenues of over £1 billion on their website. Perhaps public pressure on Endless will convince them to take the "transformational" step of paying all of their workers in accordance with the statutory minimum wage instead of exploiting wageless workers supplied at the taxpayers' expense by the DWP.
Contact details:
General enquiries: enquiries@theworks.co.uk 
Twitter: @TheWorksStores 
 Facebook: The Works
 Contact form (Endless LLP): Click here
Managing Director (Endless LLP): chris.clegg@endlessllp.com
Chairman (Endless LLP): peter.yendell@endlessllp.com 
Twitter: @EndlessLLP 

Wetherspoons (Admit involvement)
JD Wetherspoon is one of the largest pub chains in the UK with 860 outlets. In 2011 they turned over £1 billion and made a profit of £46.8 million. They too stand accused of exploiting rightless, wageless workers provided by the DWP at the taxpayers' expense.
Contact details:
Feedback form: Click here
Ideas form: Click here (and tell them that it would be a nice "idea" for them to pay all of their employees in accordance with the statutory minimum wage)
General enquiries: myjdw@jdwetherspoon.co.uk
Twitter: @jdwtweet
Facebook: Weatherspoon

WHSmiths (Deny involvement, using ambiguous language)
The WHSmiths chain of newsagents and railway shops is one of the most iconic names in British retail. The company had a turnover of over £1.2 billion in 2012 and made an £84 million profit. They too stand accused of participating in the DWP's work for no pay schemes.
Contact details:
Feedback form: Click here
Customer relations: customer.relations@whsmith.co.uk
Twitter: @Whsmithscouk,
 Facebook: WHSmiths
UPDATE: WHSmiths have asserted in replies to email concerns that the that they do not use "the workfare scheme". The email I received showed absolutely no indication that my email had actually been read. "Workfare" is a generic name for several different unpaid labour schemes, so referring to it as a singular scheme in their copy & paste replies is at best ambiguous. We should ask that they clarify the situation with a press release stating whether either of the following statements are true: 1. WHSmiths is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is WHSmiths company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

Wilkinson (Deny involvement, using ambiguous language)
Wilkinson is a hardware retailer with 364 branches in the UK. They have been involved in the Workfare programme too, undermining the statutory minimum wage by exploiting unpaid labour.
Contact details:
Customer services: customer.services@wilko.co.uk
Twitter: @LoveWilko
Facebook: WilkinsonPlus
UPDATE: Wilkinson have asserted in a Tweet and on Facebook that they do not use Workfare. We should not accept unsubstantiated assertions and ask instead that they clarify the situation with a press release stating whether either of the following statements are true: 1. Wilkinson is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf. 2. That it is Wilkinson company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the national minimum wage. Awaiting response...

COMPANIES REMOVED FROM THE LIST

Toni & Guy 
From the moment they were contacted Toni & Guy have insisted that they have never been involved in any unpaid "work-for-your-benefits" schemes. Their head of Human Resources has contacted me directly and categorically stated that:

1.TONI&GUY are not involved in any unpaid work-for-your-benefits schemes
2. It is TONI&GUY’s Company policy to pay at least the National Minimum Wage to all employees (including trainees).

It seems that their inclusion on the list was a mistake, however given the heinous veil of government secrecy over which companies are involved in these "workfare" schemes it is almost inevitable that mistakes like this are going to be made. Censoring the verifiable information on who is involved doesn't magically make the labour rights protestors go away, it simply makes the organisation of effective protest that much more difficult.

Superdrug
Superdrug is the second largest chemists in Britain with 900 stores. It is part of the multinational Hong Kong based A.S. Watson Group which in turn is a subsidiary of the gigantic Hutchinson Whampoa group. Hutchinson Whampoa is 50% owned by the Cheung Kong Holdings group. On March 19 2013 Superdrug announced on Facebook that they have withdrawn from the "workfare" schemes they had previously admitted involvement in.

WHAT TO WRITE

 Here are a few tips on what to write if you decide to use any of the email addresses provided:

1. Remember to be polite. A rude email is unlikely to convince anyone of anything, other than to harden their stance against anything you say.

2. Tell them that you are a customer and that you will be boycotting their store until you are certain that they have ceased involvement in mandatory unpaid labour schemes.

3. Request that they comply with the statutory Minimum Wage for all of their staff.

4. Be concise. The recipient is almost certain to be a busy working person. Try not to exceed two or three short paragraphs, anything longer and your message is likely to go unread.

5. Ask specific questions. Ask them to explicity confirm that they A. Are not involved in taxpayer funded "work-for-your-benefits" schemes and B. Pay all employees (including trainees) in accordance with the National Minimum Wage.

6. Request a response. Ask that someone in authority replies to your concerns.

7. Follow up: If no response is forthcoming, forward the original email to them after a few days with a covering note explaining that you are awaiting a response.

If you don't fancy drafting your own letter, I have provided a template letter that can be copy and pasted into your email in the next section.

 LETTER TEMPLATE

 It is a much better idea to compose your own letter, since repeated iterations of the same template are much more likely to be ignored. However, if you do not have much time, or you are not confident in drafting letters, then I've prepared a template letter for you to use.

Simply copy and paste the following text into your email and replace the [blanks] as appropriate:

______________________________________________________________________________

Dear [Use full name if apparent]

I am a longstanding customer of [Name of retail outlet] but I have decided to boycott your company because I object to your involvement in mandatory unpaid labour (Workfare) schemes. I believe that the exploitation of unpaid labour is morally wrong and urge you to reconsider your involvement with these DWP Workfare placements.

I believe that as a responsible employer, your company has an obligation to meet the statutory Minimum Wage for all of your employees. I shall continue my boycott until I am provided with satisfactory evidence that your company is no longer involved in these mandatory work schemes and agrees to the principle that all employees deserve to earn at least the UK National Minimum Wage. I also believe that it is actually in your own interests that these unpaid labour schemes are abandoned, since workers with wages in their pockets are consumers and consumer spending is the principal driver of demand in the retail sector. It may seem counter intuitive that paying your staff better wages would increase your profitability, however Henry Ford demonstrated that he understand this economic principle almost 100 years ago when he made the decision to price his cars low and to pay his workers reasonably well.


I would like your company to make a public statement (press release) explicitly stating these two things:

1 That your company is no longer involved in any of the various unpaid labour or "work-for-your-benefits" schemes administered by the DWP or by private sector interests working on their behalf.

2. That it is company policy that all workers (including trainees) are paid in accordance with the National Minimum Wage.

I would appreciate it if the issues I have raised were dealt with by someone in authority. I shall look forward to hearing your response to these concerns.

Yours

[Your Name]
_________________________________________________________________________________

SOCIAL MEDIA TIPS

Aside from numerous email addresses and contact forms, you will have noticed that I have included a number of social media contacts too. I believe that these are just as important as direct messages. A demonstration of the power of social media is probably the fact that you are here at all. The vast majority of visits to this page have come via Facebook and Twitter.

Twitter

 If you send any messages via Twitter, please try to include the hashtag:

#CorporateWelfareScroungers  

It would be great if enough of us used it that it started "trending".

Facebook
If you are going to leave a message on the Facebook wall of any of these companies, please remember to be polite, these pages are perfectly within their rights to remove rude or abusive messages.

I'd be interested to know people's stories of their polite and reasonable comments being censored, or their experiences of being blocked from commenting on particular pages. Please let us know the details in the comments section if this happens to you.

REMOVAL FROM THE LIST

If any companies have withdrawn from participation in these mandatory unpaid work schemes and would like to have their details struck from the list, please send a message to 
corporatewelfarescroungers@gmail.com
with links to supporting evidence (press releases, news coverage, a company letter to the DWP...) that your company has quit the scheme and agree to pay the National Minimum Wage to all employees. Upon receipt of such evidence your company details will be removed from the list as soon as possible.

THANK YOU

I'd like to say thank you to everyone that has given their valuable time to contacting some (or all) of these companies. Without your participation all of my work compiling this list would have been worthless.

ABOUT ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE

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 source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

Another Angry Voice on Facebook
Another Angry Voice on Twitter