<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Workfare the Future says GMB Union </title>
		<description>Discuss Workfare the Future says GMB Union </description>
		<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:52:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://unemploymentmovement.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/49" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Support</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-20</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What can we do to support your organization?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nalik</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-20</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mr</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-16</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There is actually evidence that workfare is being abused already. http://www.boycottworkfare.org . People hav e been made redundant and workfare people have been brought in to fill the void]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Kyron</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-16</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Caution! As GMB Retreats</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-13</link>
			<description><![CDATA[VICTORY - The GMB Dissociates Itself from the Kennedy Scott Report : http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/05/finally-gmb-dissociates-itself-from.htmlUrging Further Privatisation of Job Centres. There are of course many unanswered questions not least why the GMB promoted this in the House of Lords. We owe Tony Greenstein a Debt of Gratitude for his unwavering tenacity in getting this story the attention it deserved and a big Thank You to the many unseen & unheard voices that were on our side. However there were those out there who would not accept what we revealed; a one Andy Newman of the Socialist Unity website argued that “CLAIMS ABOUT GMB AND WORKFARE ARE INACCURATE AND SENSATIONALISED ”.: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=8158 Commenter’s were not so obliging towards the thrust of this argument….. We along with many others will be watching the GMB`s involvement with Workfare and the Privatisation of Jobcentres and hope as Tendance Coatesy reports on his blog: http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/gmb-backs-privatisation-and-work-programme-then-backs-down/#comment-4304 that; “I can assure the GMB that this incident has not passed unnoticed by senior figures in other unions.”]]></description>
			<dc:creator>terratech</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-13</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Kenny Responds</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-11</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's actually my own blog rather than the Centre's Terratech! Probably because we are (theoretically! ) a TUC recognised unemployed centre (for how much longer I'm not sure) Paul Kenny responded on Sunday morning to my 'ranting' and 'lies'. He also made the samantic distinction between 'workfare' and 'welfare reform'. In fact they are 2 sides of the same lowpay coin. Pushing people into jobs and keeping people in work on notice that if they take action there are others who'll have their jobs is central to this. Clearly the GMB is sensitive to this, hence the early morning e-mail from someone who wouldn't normally give the time of day to ordinary members (which I'm not). See http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/05/kenny-replies-more-privatisation-is.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tony Greenstein</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 02:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-11</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul Kenny Judas of GMB</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-10</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank You, Tony! And I would like to recommend members and visitors visit the Brighton Unemployed Centre: http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/05/paul-kenny-judas-of-gmb.html website and read the excellent follow up to the article. It includes a Letter to Paul Kenny from the Secretary – Brighton Unemployed Centre & a shop steward from the GMB in Brighton questioning his actions and for his resignation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>terratech</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 14:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-10</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul Kenny and the GMB Leadership Scab on the Unemployed and their own Membership</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-9</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is not about terminological exactitude or playing with words. It's about principle, something our nitpicking Luke fails to understand. What is being advocated is that these 'trainers' should go into and have space in job centres. It suggests that 'training' will help unemployed people get jobs. These programmes will not increase the no. of jobs by even 1. They force the unemployed to compete harder with each other, the effect of which is also to lower wages for those in work, since if they want a wage increase they will be told there are xxx wanting your job. It holds up the American model, based as it is on less 'generous' (the Report's words not mine) benefits. One word that doesn't appear in the Report is 'sanctions' i.e. cutting benefits to force people to take jobs or Wisconsin. Wisconsin is where they pioneered workfare and where they have also pioneered derecognition of unions in the public sector, even those led by scabs like Kenny.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tony Greenstein</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 01:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-9</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Slippery Rhetoric</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-8</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mmmm, yes the slippery rhetoric of workfare where "personalisatio n", "individually tailored" advice and support are the management speak of the iron fist in the velvet glove… of Politicians & Providers and maybe an issue you could post about as a member. A comments section will not do justice to this subject.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>terratech</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 15:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-8</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>mr</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-7</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why is there no mention of this on the GMB website?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ian Cropton</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 11:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-7</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Still confused</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-6</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Now where does this report promote a Work Subsidy Scheme" As I said, the terminology seems to be none too clear here and the uninitiated will no doubt have trouble making sense of the report, as I do. But perhaps that's what they mean by the "assistance to work" schemes, "proactive support for workers", etc that is referred to throughout the document? "Maybe you should get acquainted with this…" I'm not sure I follow what you're on about. What specifically, do you think this report is a clear endorsement of? Because it seems to me like it's just calling on the government to improve back-to-work programmes etc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 08:54:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-6</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Opposing Workfare and Privatisation</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-5</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Now where does this report promote a Work Subsidy Scheme (to keep a person in their present job) nowhere! I believe. What this article puts forward is workfare as understood by both countries. Maybe you should get acquainted with this….. TUC Green Paper on Opposing Workfare and Privatisation.: http://www.tuc.org.uk/social/tuc-15630-f0.cfm]]></description>
			<dc:creator>terratech</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 22:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-5</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boycott workfare</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-4</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We are a group of claimants, trade unionists & charity workers who are opposed to workfare or any other name it is touted as. All this will do is push wages down and actually create unemployment as the capitalists will see the profit margins increase. Contact www.boycottworkfare.org to sign the pledge against this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 20:34:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-4</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>I think you've made a mistake here...</title>
			<link>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-3</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It seems like you're confusing programmes that force people to work in order to receive their benefits with programmes that aim to get people off benefits and into work. The report seems to be endorsing the latter, and I can't see any points where it recommends the former. I think this is a terminological issue, as "welfare-to-wor k" is an ambiguous term, and it seems that "workfare" is also used in a slightly different way in American usage and so on... Do you have any unambiguous statement that what the GMB are supporting is actually the use of programmes that force people to work for welfare wages? Also, interestingly, the report says 175,000 not 200,000... I doubt there's been a sudden jump of 25,000 since it was written, so it looks like either GMB or the people producing the report had their figures wrong.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 13:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://unemploymentmovement.com/blog/welfare/49-workfare-the-future-says-gmb-union-#comment-3</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
