A4e works in partnership with BAe Systems
Monopoly
A4e now has the monopoly for 'Gateway to Work' entry into the DWP 'New Deal' provision in Sheffield.
A4e are 'partnered' with BAe Systems one of the biggest global weapons corporations. Anyone who's been unemployed for 18 months must attend a two week 'Gateway to Work' course and as a consequence of the monopoly must attend A4e, there is no choice, but to swell he coffers of this global corporation that has a 'partnership' with BAe systems by 'agreeing' to go on a course, if you refuse you face a 1/3 cut in benefits for 26 weeks. Benefit levels are barely half of the poverty line. There are however other providers of the next stage in the 'New Deal' provision the 13 or 26 week 'Intensive Activity Period'. If you're unemployed and anti-war then A4e should be boycotted. Tell your New Deal Advisor you object on grounds of conscience and insist that you should not be placed on the A4e course.
The rich get richer and the best way to rob a bank is to own one. A4e are nothing less than a profit led corporation training wage slaves to be good slaves, they are wage slave traders placing jobseekers into government subsidised minimum wage dead end jobs with often no union protections they neither know nor care how sustainable or suitable these 'opportunities' are. Wage slaves are encouraged to take any job with the lies and damn lies of statistics projecting the myth of the better job you might get if you're already employed. A4e pick up a bounty of £2000 for every wage slave they sell.
Brainwashing
In the last session on the first day of your induction to the 2 week 'Gateway to Work' course. It is suggested to you that it is your fault you haven't got a job.
The trainer (a trained 'motivator') draws four squares on the flip chart - he heads the chart "Essentials for getting a Job". By now the 30 or so trainees are working in groups part of the 'team building' exercise. The groups are now asked to work in producing a list of 'essentials'. After a few minutes "essentials" are called out from each group, the trainer now enters the called out "essentials" into the four squares he'd drawn earlier, obviously categorising them. The group are then asked to guess the categories of the 'essentials' and 'essentials' are soon categorised more or less as :- "Knowledge", "skills", "materials" and "Will". The trainees are then told that 'Will' is the "essential essential", Jobseekers need the will to want a job, if they don't have the will/desire to work then they'll be unemployed. The implication of course being that it is the jobseekers lack of will that has led to them not having a job i.e. its their fault, at this point many trainees object and state using various examples of how most often it is the decisions of governments made in the interests of global corporations that make people jobless. This is particularly true in Sheffield where the double whammy of the destruction of both the coal and steel industries led to the massive levels of unemployment in the '80s, many of these often skilled jobs were never replaced, now we have a low skill service jobs market mostly in retail or distribution sustained by the myth of exponential 'growth' and cheap credit. The current increase in jobless numbers is directly due to the greed and criminal activities of international bankers.
The following day the two most vocal objectors to this brain washing - It's your fault you haven't got a job, are called in for a little chat, where they are told that the discussion of politics in the class room wasn't allowed as it was 'negative' for the 'vulnerable' jobless on the course, In a break the class was asked if they minded political discussion, by an objector, none objected and a few said they found it made the course more interesting. It was pointed out to the trainers that it was they who had initially encouraged the discussion by asking questions to one of the objectors and then subsequently attempting to argue their position.
It was also pointed out to the trainers that part of the purpose of the course is to examine "barriers to work" a DWP directive, clearly external geo-political factors like climate change, banking crises, peak oil, having a war criminal government operating in the interests of oil and weapons corporations are 'barriers to work' to anti war environmentalists and should be discussed. Politics however was 'red carded'. During this little chat it was clear that the 'motivational' trainer was ignorant of a jobseekers right to reject a job opportunity for conscientious reasons, for example a vegetarian in an abattoir, a pacifist in a weapons factory.
One of A4e's 'partners' is BAe systems one of the biggest arms manufacturers on the planet. When this was pointed out to a trainer, the trainer lost their temper with the messenger, the two trainers present then rounded on the messenger one of them saying.
"You know the difference between me and you is that I'm employed and you're not".
Several of the trainees objected to this statement and concern was expressed to the Deputy business manager, an apology was subsequently offered by the trainer and graciously accepted by the objectors.
If you're unfortunate enough to have been unemployed for 18 months 'New Deal' is what you'll get and A4e wiil be the most likely provider, but you have some say in this and A4e should be boycotted if this is possible. A4e are a legitimate target for anti-war and anti-arms trade activists.
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Every days a holiday when you dont gotta go to work
15.11.2008 21:11
A Vegan
Thanks
16.11.2008 00:04
a nunnrmus
A4e are evil
16.11.2008 21:49
I strongly recommend that anyone who is unemployed (whether anti-war or not) avoids A4E like the plague. Their objective is to make unemployment unbearable. They're unlikely to help anyone get a job, but they will make life impossible for unemployed people who are leading fulfilled and productive lives.
Sonia Sock
Thanks for info
16.11.2008 23:58
I have been with A4E at Hollywood Road, London, they are a complete joke not interested in getting you work they seek for a "voluntary" placement for you, which you can not refuse, so my ass is voluntary, they get paid a bonus for each slave they can give to companies.
I want to make clear that any charity out there taking on forced workers can fuck off and I will never help in my life a mainstream charity, they take on British slaves to growth their organisation, one charity that gives computers to the third world, so they say, has an agreement with A4E so unemployed will refurbisht those computers for free getting paid nothing with no job at the end of the "assignment". If you have a computer give it to an anarchist group or throw it in the bin, but not to any charity.
Frank
http://www.peakdistrictonline.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=1221
17.11.2008 12:33
" Most people have been thrown off the course and had their benfits stopped for having the wrong attitude"
They partner wioth a load of poverty pimp NGO.'s as well as ASDA (Walmart ).
( emmas house ) http://www.peakdistrictonline.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=1221
shit wages for the disabled, security guard jobs if you're black, and a sense of achievment if you're a rich fascist.
remeber it kis the rich and the midle classes who areone s that are really being subsidised ...
Emma Harrison is available at Thornbridge Hall
Know your rights!
17.11.2008 13:57
Our economy is based on consumption based on cheap credit, facilitated by cheap fossil fuels.
In order for the economy to function it is necessary to pre-emptively invade sovereign countries to secure energy supplies, this is against the Nuremberg principles namely planning and carrying out agressive wars. Our country is run by war criminals and our consumer economy depends on war crimes to function. This rules out most job opportunities in the current job market, i.e. retail, distribution, customer services on conscientious grounds, because the only way these 'opportunities' come into existence is through the criminal activities of corporations and governments acting together in the corporations interest in a way Mussolini would have approved of.
When ever I put these legitimate "barriers to work" forward to an advisor they either agree or come out with similar excuses to those that organised and ran the holocaust 'just doing my job' 'my kids come first' 'I've got a mortgage'. On one occasion a Job Center Plus manager explained "I agree with what you're saying, but when I put my badge on I have to forget my conscience". This manager later resigned from their job.
This cognitive dissonance inside many employed by the war criminal government at JCP is never far from the surface, many try to argue that I'm limiting my job search - my argument is that its not me limiting my search, but the way the economy is set up, I'm not responsible for the decisions made by the war criminals to invade this country or destabilise that economy in the interests of a few billionaires. Always insist that you are looking for work in sustainable jobs jobs that don't involve the depletion of the Planets scarce and finite resources so the idle rich can get richer.
There is some protection under Law
First if you don't 'agree' with your Jobseekers 'agreement' then you don't have a claim, and you lose benefits. This threat to your economic security makes you sign the JSA. Under contract Law this is illegal as you are signing under 'duress and undue influence' that is you are merely giving the appearance of agreement so that you have a claim. This effectively makes the JSA illegal. If you don't agree with anything on the agreement and you sign anyway, make it clear on the agreement that you are signing under 'duress and undue influence'
Second there is some protection under the Supply of goods and services act. Providers of services to customers must execute "reasonable skill and care" when dealing with customers. So if your adviser ignores your legitimate 'barriers to work' and tries to sanction you, you can show that they've not acted with 'reasonable skill and care' whether you win an appeal is debatable, but if you quote these two Laws to your adviser or their line manager they usually back off with the threats of sanction because they're scared of litigation and they realise they're dealing with someone who knows their rights.
Action for Enjoyment
But is it contractual?
17.11.2008 17:42
My doubt is that JSA is contractual at all. It's a statutory, rather than contractual, arrangement isn't it? In which case, the law of contract won't apply. The fact that the word "contract" may be used doesn't necessarily make it contractual in law.
Further research and thinking would be worthwhile with a view to finding a solid way to challenge this crap. I don't know a lot of contract law myself. Anyone else......?
Stroppyoldgit
THE LAW!
17.11.2008 18:23
Agreements are contracts and must be agreed on by both sides, that's what your doing when you sign the JSA, agreeing to it. If you don't agree with it and you sign it, because you are told that failure to sign it means you don't have a claim, not having a claim means a cut in benefits by 1/3.
Full benefit is barely half of the poverty line, so any cut in benefit would lead to increased hardship well below half the poverty line. This realisation makes a jobseeker sign the agreement even though they might not agree with it, because of the duress of facing a cut in benefits. The undue influence is your advisor (person in a position of power) telling you that you must sign even though you've told them you object and don't agree.
Statute Law just means laws laid down by an act of Parliament - the other category Laws come under is Common or Case law.
An agreement is a contract and falls under contract Law whether its Common or Statute
I've asked around and have been told that this case could be made, but would be prohibitively expensive for anyone trying to prove it in a Law court. But that's what frightens the JCP the cost of having to defend the JSA in a court of Law.
Action for Enjoyment
Job Seekers Agreement
22.11.2008 01:48
If you're threatened with sanctions for 'breaking' your agreement then challenge the legality of the JsA itself, say it was signed under duress and undue influence and therefore may be vitiated (that's legalese for the agreement is not legal) what this does is put into question the legal document that is being used to threaten you with sanctions - the JsA, by challenging the legal basis of the JsA you challenge the legality of the sanction. You can 'break' an illegal agreement because there is no agreement there to break.
Well that's the theory! How it works in Practise ........
Action for Enjoyment
The A4e operate covert Forced Labour Market and facilitates Money Laundering
01.12.2008 22:28
On 12 March 2008 the payment of JSA was stopped at all for indefinite period of time, and I submitted the claim to Administrative Court for judicial review of the DPW. Meanwhile, I studied some law and discovered that the order to participate in Action for Employement programme of New Deal was not legal at all. I composed a questionaire to have some issues explained by Jobcenter. In particular, I was interested in the legal relations between A4e, Jobcenter and European Social Fund. The letter with the questions was sent by recorded mail, and was never received by Jobcenter, as they claim. So, I complained to my MP. He sent the copy of the letter to Mr Stathie, Chief Executive of Jobcenter, and the letter went missing. On 19 April 2008 my claim for Jobseeker's allowance was closed at all on the basis of forged accusation that I did not come to sign my declaration to Jobcenter. I received the copy of a letter which Mr Bartlett, Director of Programmes at Jobcenter Plus, on behalf of Mrs Stathie send to my MP in response to his letter .The letter of Mr Bartlett was compilation of blunt lies, forged facts and attempts to redicule me. I received impression that Mr Bartlett has a roof which protects him in very high strata of the British governance. My claim at Administrative Court failed three times without being given any explanation. Thus, Sir Michael Harrison on my application for Interim relief declared that it is inappropriate to apply for judicial review if alternative remedies exist! And this wise decision he made when I had nothing to eat and was threatened with eviction! Now, I submitted an appeal to Kentish Town Jobcenter against the decision of 19 April in person, and I have the proof of this. Nvertheless, it was claimed that Jobcenter knows nothing about the claim. Etc, etc, etc. Well, I am a foreigner, and Jobcenter and British nobility decided to teach me how to be a slave in this country!
Let us go back to A4e. My calculations show that the companies whom they supply with slaves, earn about 1.2 million pounds per year just from the workers supplied from Archway campus.. These money are laundered somehow and somewhere, and I became dangerous for the network of Jobcenter-A4e-European Social Fund-benefiting companies, and it is obvious that they can find the way to shut my mouth up! Besides of hounding on official level, I was assaulted by youngsters near Tesco, Ch+, in June, and the assault was made coldly, in professional manner by well trained kids. On a number of occasions, after wisiting Jobcenter, I was confronted by people on wheelchairs, or on canes! People, who are versed in clandestine wars in London will understand me well! At the moment, I am submiiting my case to the Court of Appeals, to the European Court on Human Rights and to the International Criminal Court. Meanwhile, I am being covertly drugged and irradiated by low intensity electromagnetic fields and infrasound at hostel where I'm dwelling presently. Many more details you can find on my webblog www.britishalumni-joblessclub.blogspot.com. I am going to publish there legal references to show that Jobclub Plus is using New Deal fraudulently to supply slaves to british industry and to get percents for doing so!
Alexander Sobko
e-mail: a.sobko@theiet.org
Homepage: http://www.britishalumni-joblessclub.blogspot.com