This website uses cookies for anonymised analytics and for account authentication. See our privacy and cookies policies for more information.





The voice of Scotland’s vibrant voluntary sector

Published by Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

TFN is published by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Mansfield Traquair Centre, 15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh, EH3 6BB. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation. Registration number SC003558.

McSence founder attacks directors for stance on workfare

This news post is over 9 years old
 

​Founder of social enterprise says group directors are going against ethos of founding principles by taking part in work-for-benefits scheme

A leading social enterprise has been attacked by its founder for taking part in a government scheme which makes unemployed and disabled people work for their benefits.

Brian Tannerhill MBE, who founded East Lothian-based McSence Group in 1988, said taking part in the controversial workfare programme went against the ethos of the multi-million pound social enterprise.

McSence, which is headquartered in Mayfield, East Lothian, provides training and employment opportunities to a range of people but especially those with barriers to employment and those who face social exclusion.

Workfare makes claimants work for their benefits beside paid staff for up to six months with only their travelling expenses reimbursed.

Up to 20 people at a time join McSence as part of workfare – a situation Tannerhill said had to stop.

“This breaks my heart,” he said. “I spent 25 years building this group of companies from my own small ideas to a multi-million pound asset owned by our community.

“What are the directors thinking of? This was not what McSence was intended for.

“The directors are accountable to everyone living in the community of Mayfield and Easthouses who are prepared to pay a one pound annual membership and I call on them all now, to stand up and tell the directors this scheme is not acceptable in our community or anywhere else.

“This must stop now.”

The running of workfare schemes is outsourced to a range of public, private and voluntary sector providers, who sub-contract parts of their schemes to charities and community groups.

Unemployed and disabled people referred to these schemes are required to carry out unpaid work in return for their benefits.

However the majority of third sector organisations in Scotland have agreed to boycott the scheme by signing up to the Keep Volunteering Voluntary code with only a small minority still using workfare.

A McSence statement said: “The people who take part in our programme are given a valuable opportunity to gain the skills and experience and most importantly confidence in a work-based environment, as well as the support to help them into employment.

"It should also be noted that there have been some positive outcomes where McSence has employed a few people from this programme.”

 

Comments

0 0
ECAP
over 9 years ago
Since we're on the subject of blackmail. Then a claimant being threatened with a 13-week benefit sanction which, for a JSA claimant, would mean them losing over £1,000, for refusing to undertake a 4-week MWA workfare placement with a charity - must also qualify as blackmail?As for Learndirect, for every claimant they get into a MWA placement with a charity they get paid several hundred £££ - which comes from the UK taxpayer via the DWP. To avoid any confusion, it is not Learndirect (Scotland) but Learndirect UK who have the MWA contract for Scotland.And the charities themselves appear to be unaware that the MWA placements they offer are not covered by their Employers' Liability Insurance. How? There are only two categories of staff that can be insured: volunteers and employees. A claimant cannot volunteer for MWA, it is mandatory. Consequently, since they are not a volunteer or an employee - they remain uninsured whilst on placement with the charity. This applies to all other government workfare schemes. Charities participating in workfare schemes may also wish to consider the fact they can be fined up to £250 for every day they operate without adequate liability insurance. Not to mention the additional adverse media publicity such a hefty fine would attract!
Commenting is now closed on this post