*please repost
On 12 November, it became legal to force unemployed people to work for their benefits – to do 40-hour-weeks for under a third of the minimum wage. The Government's Welfare Reform Act introduced 'Work for your Benefit' pilot schemes, which once completed can be rolled out without any further debate. It also attacked single parents – who face sanctions if they fail to prepare for work outside the home as soon as their child turns three – and people with impairments, disabilities or severe andenduring illnesses.
Two days later, members of twenty-three different groups from around theUK met to share information and plan resistance to these pernicious attacks, which will take their toll on working-class and low-income communities.
Groups present included Unemployed Workers Unions from six cities acrossthe UK, the Disabled People's Direct Action Network, Southwark Mind,WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities), SingleMothers' Self-Defence (part of Global Women's Strike) and members of the union in the Department of Work and Pensions – PCS. They were joined by feminist and other groups (all listed below).
The strength to be gained from meeting in solidarity with each other was immense and created a real sense that a movement is building: a movementwhich will not only fight the immediate attacks of the Welfare Abolition Act, but draw out the connections between our struggles and together challenge the ideology driving them.
The Act seeks to make our worth dependent on work; work defined in the really narrow terms of waged work for someone else's profit. By making us compete with those in waged work for non-existent jobs, it helps drive down wages and conditions. We all take the brunt as the rich make even more money out of us.
• We want solidarity with and from people in low-income, temporary and insecure work. These are the jobs that 'work-for-your-benefit' would replace.
• We want caring to be recognised as important work in society. Single parents are already working and benefits are their entitlement to a social wage.
• We want justice for people with severe or enduring illnesses. The drive to get people off incapacity benefits and Employment and Support Allowance and into work is making people more ill with stress. Only we know what we are capable of and it is wrong for conditions and sanctions to be imposed on us to force us into unsuitable work, unwanted “work-related activity”or “motivation sessions” which press us into their programmes of treatmentfor addictions and other conditions.
• We want the right not to work. People not in waged work contribute loads to their communities. We do not want to be forced into mind-numbing,insecure work that leaves us no better off, or worse off than on benefitsand definitely not at £1.27 an hour!
• We want free, high-quality, public services to support older people andpeople with impairments/disabilities. People should not have to become employers managing 'individual budgets' in order to access the care they need.
• We want to stand in solidarity with migrant workers. Just as unemployed people are pitted against people in work, so migrant workers are pittedagainst us. We believe that we must stand together and demand all of ourrights together.
• We want to fight privatisation of the Department for Work and Pensions.Attacks on DWP and Jobcentre Plus workers are attacks on our rights toaccess welfare. We will support the PCS' fight against cuts.
• We want an end to the apartheid system of benefits, healthcare and housing for asylum seekers. UK Border Agency support should be scrapped-- where people are forced to survive on incomes far below benefit levels– which are already set at subsistence level. No slum housing and dangerous and dirty hostels, dispersal, or vouchers.
After a day of info-sharing, outrage and scheming, we formed a few working groups. If you're able to help out with any of the projects, please email hackneyunemployedworkers@gmail.com
1. Media working group – monitor and respond to hostile articles in the media.
2. Our propaganda – creating posters, newsletters etc to get our messages out
3. Website – put together a website as a space to share resources, feedback and comment, get the word out about our campaign and publicise local and national action.
4. Our welfare rights – compiling information to help us access our rights now and creating 'Know your rights' leaflets.
5. Defeating the Work for your Benefits pilots – research to support the network to take action against the pilots.
If you want to stay in touch, please join our discussion list here:http://groups.google.com/group/no-to-welfare-abolition
If you agree with our demands above and would like to take part in ourcampaign, please ask your group to sign up to this statement and email hackneyunemployedworkers@gmail.com
And put the next national meeting in your diary now.... 17 April in Manchester!
The meeting had people in attendance from: South Manchester Community Union, London Anarcha-Feminist Kolektiv, London Coalition Against Poverty, Feminist Action, Defend Welfare Newcastle, Manchester Unemployed WorkersUnion, Cambridge Unemployed Workers' Union, PCS, Hackney UnemployedWorkers, Single Mothers' Self Defence, Winvisible, Alliance for Workers'Liberty, Disabled People's Direct Action Network, Southwark Mind, Women's Office Manchester Student Union, Riveters feminist group in Manchester,Feminist Fightback, Industrial Workers of the World, No Borders, StopDeportations, Anarchist Federation, Communist Students, SalfordUnemployed Workers' Union.
Friday, 11 December 2009
UK Government's Welfare Reform: Comments
Dear friends
We wanted you to see the letter from Single Mothers' Self-Defence and
WinVisible in
today’s Guardian (UK Newspaper), together with other letters. Below is what we were
responding to.
Please circulate widely.
Many thanks
_________________
Letters
Crackdown on fraud – and the vulnerable
The Guardian, Wednesday 9 December 2009
Minister Helen Goodman claims she agrees "that the early years of a
child's life are
so important" (Letters, 3 December). Yet Labour, with almost 100 women
MPs, many
calling themselves feminists, voted on 10 November for benefit sanctions
against
single parents of children aged three upwards, if they refused "work-related
activity". The "family-friendly" provisions Ms Goodman takes credit for
were won in
a knock-down fight in the Lords spearheaded by carers, including
breastfeeding
mothers, and women with disabilities. Labour already had in place that
mothers with
newborns had to report for "work-focused interviews". We won exemption from
interviews until the child is one; exemption from work-related activity,
if there is
no childcare; and for mothers of disabled children receiving any care
benefits,
among other concessions.
Better-off families can choose for one parent to stay at home, but
children from
low-income families are denied their right to care from someone who loves
them. Few
employers allow flexible working when teenage children need and deserve
attention.
At a recent single parents' conference, minister Yvette Cooper heard the
profound
problems mothers have of job insecurity, as well as discrimination against
part-time
workers. On top of coping alone with debt, high rents, stress, children's
behavioural problems, the enforced double day is a recipe for family
breakdown.
Professionals at the conference showed they know these problems inside
out, but they
do not protest publicly.
Kim Sparrow Single Mothers' Self-Defence
Claire Glasman WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities)
• It's ironic that the day the government announced a blitz on benefit
fraud, our
39-year-old severely disabled daughter who has very high support needs
received a
summons for fraud, with a substantial penalty charge levied, in threatening
language, from our local NHS Fraud Office for a prescription from April. The
prescription was ticked in the appropriate box as free, as she has always
been in
receipt of free medication, as disabled from birth. She has lived at the same
address for 13 years, has not changed her GP and, unfortunately, is
reliant on
several medications that require constant repeat prescriptions that are
ongoing.
Fortunately we, as parents, are able to challenge this inexcusable action,
that was
seemingly made without any checks on who she was or her status. Now the
"blitz" is
being rolled out, how many other of our most vulnerable and poorest
citizens are
going to be treated in such a way, and traumatised in the run up to
Christmas?
Name and address supplied
• How will Tory plans to slash already inadequate benefits support people
suffering
from depression?
H Powell
Alvechurch, Worcestershire
Letters
Lone parents
The Guardian, Thursday 3 December 2009
Our policy towards parents is based on what's best for them and their
children –
putting family first (Time to grow emotionally, 2 December). We agree with
Sue
Gerhardt that the early years of a child's life are so important – that's
why we
won't require parents to go back to work before their child is seven. And
government
financial support for families during a child's first year, including
statutory
maternity pay, the Sure Start maternity grant, and the child tax credit is
now worth
over £9,000.
For lone parent mothers of children aged seven to 12 we are introducing new
family-friendly regulations which will make clear that parents can look for
part-time work or jobs that fit with school hours. Paid work is the best
and most
sustainable route out of poverty for families and also good for people's
health and
wellbeing, and their self-esteem. It's far too simplistic to say we're
forcing
people back to work – any expectations fit round childcare and
flexibilities that
help to protect the work-family life balance.
Helen Goodman MP
Parliamentary undersecretary, Department for Work and Pensions
Time to grow emotionally
Chasing parents back to work just when children need them most will be
costly in the
long run
Sue Gerhardt
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 December 2009 22.00 GMT
Everywhere, cuts are on the agenda. And not even the youngest, it seems,
escape
their impact. With the pre-budget report looming, it is particularly
disturbing to
consider that the manifesto pledge to extend maternity leave was the first
big
casualty of the Treasury's spending squeeze – suggesting it is seen as
Labour's most
expendable commitment.
Yet other government departments have in recent years acknowledged how early
parenting is the key to laying down the foundations for emotional
wellbeing. The
first two or three years are the crucial window when various systems which
manage
emotions are put into place. In particular, it is when we learn to exercise
self-control and to be aware of other people's needs. Without these basic
emotional
skills children may not grow up emotionally competent.
But to achieve this basic emotional literacy, babies need to be with
people they are
attached to well beyond nine months. They need to be with people who are
safe and
familiar, who know them well, respond to them quickly and, above all, love
them. The
idea that their main caregiver should be forced by economic necessity to
take paid
employment – or encouraged to let someone else manage their baby's emotional
development – is ludicrous.
As "JH", a single parent opposing proposals in the new welfare reform act,
wrote: "I
have the love and the commitment – why is that not recognised? I don't see
how
paying a stranger to care for him, while I seek similarly underpaid
part-time work
(perhaps even caring for someone else's children) will benefit either of us,
financially or otherwise."
The evidence is that it is highly unlikely to benefit her child –
particularly if he
is put into low-quality nursery care – since the earlier babies are put into
nurseries, and the longer they are there, the more likely their emotional
distress
will result in them being aggressive and difficult at school. Recent
research by
Clancy Blair at Pennsylvania State University also suggests that
children's academic
achievement is highly dependent on the emotional foundations that are put
in place
in the first couple of years.
Yet instead of moving towards greater support for early parenting, the
government is
sending the message that this is a luxury we cannot afford. Mothers should
leave
their babies and get back to earning money. The worthy goal of lifting
children out
of poverty is invoked. Of course we don't want children to feel excluded from
society, to suffer from their parents' financial anxieties, or to live in
communities of workless, frustrated adults. Yet it is simple-minded of the
government to conclude that forcing parents into work is the most
effective way to
end child poverty. Many chronic welfare dependents have themselves
experienced
economic deprivation, social exclusion and emotional trauma as children
and, as a
result, have become the teenage parents, the substance abusers, the
aggressive,
unreliable, under-qualified, psychosomatically ill, emotionally unskilled,
unemployable people who are such a financial burden to us all. Their own
emotional
difficulties often make it hard for them to offer their children the
loving, firm
parenting that is so essential for psychological wellbeing. But where is
the support
for such parents in the form of psychotherapy and parent-skills training
so that we
can stop the cycle of disadvantage?
The men in the Treasury are casting around for easy targets to balance
their books
and meet their child poverty targets. But they have lost sight of what really
matters. Children's wellbeing starts with positive early relationships
from birth.
This is one investment we must make, however expensive it is. In the long
run, we
will even save money.
Sue Gerhardt is a British psychoanalytic psychotherapist and author of Why
Love
Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain
We wanted you to see the letter from Single Mothers' Self-Defence and
WinVisible in
today’s Guardian (UK Newspaper), together with other letters. Below is what we were
responding to.
Please circulate widely.
Many thanks
_________________
Letters
Crackdown on fraud – and the vulnerable
The Guardian, Wednesday 9 December 2009
Minister Helen Goodman claims she agrees "that the early years of a
child's life are
so important" (Letters, 3 December). Yet Labour, with almost 100 women
MPs, many
calling themselves feminists, voted on 10 November for benefit sanctions
against
single parents of children aged three upwards, if they refused "work-related
activity". The "family-friendly" provisions Ms Goodman takes credit for
were won in
a knock-down fight in the Lords spearheaded by carers, including
breastfeeding
mothers, and women with disabilities. Labour already had in place that
mothers with
newborns had to report for "work-focused interviews". We won exemption from
interviews until the child is one; exemption from work-related activity,
if there is
no childcare; and for mothers of disabled children receiving any care
benefits,
among other concessions.
Better-off families can choose for one parent to stay at home, but
children from
low-income families are denied their right to care from someone who loves
them. Few
employers allow flexible working when teenage children need and deserve
attention.
At a recent single parents' conference, minister Yvette Cooper heard the
profound
problems mothers have of job insecurity, as well as discrimination against
part-time
workers. On top of coping alone with debt, high rents, stress, children's
behavioural problems, the enforced double day is a recipe for family
breakdown.
Professionals at the conference showed they know these problems inside
out, but they
do not protest publicly.
Kim Sparrow Single Mothers' Self-Defence
Claire Glasman WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities)
• It's ironic that the day the government announced a blitz on benefit
fraud, our
39-year-old severely disabled daughter who has very high support needs
received a
summons for fraud, with a substantial penalty charge levied, in threatening
language, from our local NHS Fraud Office for a prescription from April. The
prescription was ticked in the appropriate box as free, as she has always
been in
receipt of free medication, as disabled from birth. She has lived at the same
address for 13 years, has not changed her GP and, unfortunately, is
reliant on
several medications that require constant repeat prescriptions that are
ongoing.
Fortunately we, as parents, are able to challenge this inexcusable action,
that was
seemingly made without any checks on who she was or her status. Now the
"blitz" is
being rolled out, how many other of our most vulnerable and poorest
citizens are
going to be treated in such a way, and traumatised in the run up to
Christmas?
Name and address supplied
• How will Tory plans to slash already inadequate benefits support people
suffering
from depression?
H Powell
Alvechurch, Worcestershire
Letters
Lone parents
The Guardian, Thursday 3 December 2009
Our policy towards parents is based on what's best for them and their
children –
putting family first (Time to grow emotionally, 2 December). We agree with
Sue
Gerhardt that the early years of a child's life are so important – that's
why we
won't require parents to go back to work before their child is seven. And
government
financial support for families during a child's first year, including
statutory
maternity pay, the Sure Start maternity grant, and the child tax credit is
now worth
over £9,000.
For lone parent mothers of children aged seven to 12 we are introducing new
family-friendly regulations which will make clear that parents can look for
part-time work or jobs that fit with school hours. Paid work is the best
and most
sustainable route out of poverty for families and also good for people's
health and
wellbeing, and their self-esteem. It's far too simplistic to say we're
forcing
people back to work – any expectations fit round childcare and
flexibilities that
help to protect the work-family life balance.
Helen Goodman MP
Parliamentary undersecretary, Department for Work and Pensions
Time to grow emotionally
Chasing parents back to work just when children need them most will be
costly in the
long run
Sue Gerhardt
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 December 2009 22.00 GMT
Everywhere, cuts are on the agenda. And not even the youngest, it seems,
escape
their impact. With the pre-budget report looming, it is particularly
disturbing to
consider that the manifesto pledge to extend maternity leave was the first
big
casualty of the Treasury's spending squeeze – suggesting it is seen as
Labour's most
expendable commitment.
Yet other government departments have in recent years acknowledged how early
parenting is the key to laying down the foundations for emotional
wellbeing. The
first two or three years are the crucial window when various systems which
manage
emotions are put into place. In particular, it is when we learn to exercise
self-control and to be aware of other people's needs. Without these basic
emotional
skills children may not grow up emotionally competent.
But to achieve this basic emotional literacy, babies need to be with
people they are
attached to well beyond nine months. They need to be with people who are
safe and
familiar, who know them well, respond to them quickly and, above all, love
them. The
idea that their main caregiver should be forced by economic necessity to
take paid
employment – or encouraged to let someone else manage their baby's emotional
development – is ludicrous.
As "JH", a single parent opposing proposals in the new welfare reform act,
wrote: "I
have the love and the commitment – why is that not recognised? I don't see
how
paying a stranger to care for him, while I seek similarly underpaid
part-time work
(perhaps even caring for someone else's children) will benefit either of us,
financially or otherwise."
The evidence is that it is highly unlikely to benefit her child –
particularly if he
is put into low-quality nursery care – since the earlier babies are put into
nurseries, and the longer they are there, the more likely their emotional
distress
will result in them being aggressive and difficult at school. Recent
research by
Clancy Blair at Pennsylvania State University also suggests that
children's academic
achievement is highly dependent on the emotional foundations that are put
in place
in the first couple of years.
Yet instead of moving towards greater support for early parenting, the
government is
sending the message that this is a luxury we cannot afford. Mothers should
leave
their babies and get back to earning money. The worthy goal of lifting
children out
of poverty is invoked. Of course we don't want children to feel excluded from
society, to suffer from their parents' financial anxieties, or to live in
communities of workless, frustrated adults. Yet it is simple-minded of the
government to conclude that forcing parents into work is the most
effective way to
end child poverty. Many chronic welfare dependents have themselves
experienced
economic deprivation, social exclusion and emotional trauma as children
and, as a
result, have become the teenage parents, the substance abusers, the
aggressive,
unreliable, under-qualified, psychosomatically ill, emotionally unskilled,
unemployable people who are such a financial burden to us all. Their own
emotional
difficulties often make it hard for them to offer their children the
loving, firm
parenting that is so essential for psychological wellbeing. But where is
the support
for such parents in the form of psychotherapy and parent-skills training
so that we
can stop the cycle of disadvantage?
The men in the Treasury are casting around for easy targets to balance
their books
and meet their child poverty targets. But they have lost sight of what really
matters. Children's wellbeing starts with positive early relationships
from birth.
This is one investment we must make, however expensive it is. In the long
run, we
will even save money.
Sue Gerhardt is a British psychoanalytic psychotherapist and author of Why
Love
Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)