This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/shortcuts/2013/feb/13/victory-unsung-hero-workfare-battle

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Victory of the unsung hero in the workfare battle Victory of the unsung hero in the workfare battle
(7 months later)
Coverage of this week's appeal court ruling on the government's controversial "work-for-your-benefits" schemes focused on Cait Reilly, a shy but determined 24-year-old graduate with her working life ahead of her.Coverage of this week's appeal court ruling on the government's controversial "work-for-your-benefits" schemes focused on Cait Reilly, a shy but determined 24-year-old graduate with her working life ahead of her.
But there was a second complainant, and a very different story; a 41-year-old man who had been unemployed for five years. If Reilly disliked the limelight, Jamieson Wilson shunned it completely. In fact, he appears not to have spoken publicly at all. Or even been photographed in connection with the case.But there was a second complainant, and a very different story; a 41-year-old man who had been unemployed for five years. If Reilly disliked the limelight, Jamieson Wilson shunned it completely. In fact, he appears not to have spoken publicly at all. Or even been photographed in connection with the case.
According to court judgments and his own witness statements, Wilson, now living in Nottingham, was an HGV driver from 1994 (although in the spring and summer months he often "worked instead as a landscape gardener"). Then his marriage broke down, and his wife went home to Ireland with their three kids. In late 2008, he was laid off. Anxious that he would not be able to support his eldest daughter, then 15, who had come to stay with him, he signed on. But payments were delayed, he ran out of money, and she returned to Ireland.According to court judgments and his own witness statements, Wilson, now living in Nottingham, was an HGV driver from 1994 (although in the spring and summer months he often "worked instead as a landscape gardener"). Then his marriage broke down, and his wife went home to Ireland with their three kids. In late 2008, he was laid off. Anxious that he would not be able to support his eldest daughter, then 15, who had come to stay with him, he signed on. But payments were delayed, he ran out of money, and she returned to Ireland.
Wilson then started getting jobseeker's allowance: "£60-67 a week, paid fortnightly, that I depend on to survive". He has, the courts recognised, "always actively sought work"; although he would prefer something that "involves working with other people," he is "happy to take any paid work".Wilson then started getting jobseeker's allowance: "£60-67 a week, paid fortnightly, that I depend on to survive". He has, the courts recognised, "always actively sought work"; although he would prefer something that "involves working with other people," he is "happy to take any paid work".
Above all, the court papers record in a wrenching insight into his life, paid work might "help him to regain his self-esteem, which has decreased steadily since his marriage breakdown and, in particular, since he was made redundant."Above all, the court papers record in a wrenching insight into his life, paid work might "help him to regain his self-esteem, which has decreased steadily since his marriage breakdown and, in particular, since he was made redundant."
In August 2011, Wilson's adviser at Jobcentre Plus told him that, unless he found work, he would have to join the community action programme, aimed at "reviving the work habit" in the long-term unemployed and helping them re-enter the job market. The placement would last up to six months. If he refused, his allowance could be stopped and he could lose his national insurance credits.In August 2011, Wilson's adviser at Jobcentre Plus told him that, unless he found work, he would have to join the community action programme, aimed at "reviving the work habit" in the long-term unemployed and helping them re-enter the job market. The placement would last up to six months. If he refused, his allowance could be stopped and he could lose his national insurance credits.
In November 2011, he was given a 30-hour a week placement at "an organisation that collects disused furniture, renovates it and distributes it to needy people in the local community". He said in a later statement: "I was told I would be in a place washing sofas, and if I didn't like it I would be sanctioned."In November 2011, he was given a 30-hour a week placement at "an organisation that collects disused furniture, renovates it and distributes it to needy people in the local community". He said in a later statement: "I was told I would be in a place washing sofas, and if I didn't like it I would be sanctioned."
Wilson drew the line. The documents record that while he felt this was "a very worthwhile organisation", he was "not prepared to work unpaid for six months". His statement reads: "If I was offered a training course that could lead to some concrete benefit, I would jump at the chance. But this … has not been arranged by looking at my needs and what is keeping me from entering the job market."Wilson drew the line. The documents record that while he felt this was "a very worthwhile organisation", he was "not prepared to work unpaid for six months". His statement reads: "If I was offered a training course that could lead to some concrete benefit, I would jump at the chance. But this … has not been arranged by looking at my needs and what is keeping me from entering the job market."
So he said no. His allowance was stopped. After that, his statement records: "I spent a lot of time at my girlfriend's and at my family who had to support me and give me food and assistance. It was very depressing and I became very low." He was very upset, he said, at being punished "because I have refused to participate in a scheme which I know will not assist me to find work and which I consider to be wrong".So he said no. His allowance was stopped. After that, his statement records: "I spent a lot of time at my girlfriend's and at my family who had to support me and give me food and assistance. It was very depressing and I became very low." He was very upset, he said, at being punished "because I have refused to participate in a scheme which I know will not assist me to find work and which I consider to be wrong".
In the end, the court did not rule on what it called Wilson's "fundamental objection" to the scheme. Instead, it declared he was given inadequate information about the placement and incorrect information about the consequences of turning it down. One imagines, all the same, that he feels vindicated.In the end, the court did not rule on what it called Wilson's "fundamental objection" to the scheme. Instead, it declared he was given inadequate information about the placement and incorrect information about the consequences of turning it down. One imagines, all the same, that he feels vindicated.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.