John McArthur, social enterprise and a living wage

John McArthur is refusing to work with no pay and he's conducting a one-man protest to draw attention to his status, having been sanctioned by DWP for refusing the terms and conditions offered by the Community Work Placement program.

He was working for LAMH, a social enterprise in Motherwell, who go to the trouble of declaring what a social enterprise is, on their website.

"A Social Enterprise can be defined as a business operating in a commercial environment but with primarily social objectives with surpluses principally reinvested for that purpose rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for share holders and owners".

In 2003, a hunger strike in North Carolina had set the scene for bringing our own social enterprise model to the UK  Founder Terry Hallman fasted for US goverment to ratify the International Convenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in which a living wage is defined. The primary target of this protest being the low wage employers like Walmart, who successfully lobby against such innovation.

Back in 1996, it had been his postion paper on people-centered economic development which had argued the case for a business which puts people ahead of shareholder returns, to challenge the Milton Friedman assertion about social responsibility. When introducing this to the UK in 2004, following recent work in Crimea, our business plan declared::

” Fifty percent of annual surplus will remain in each local community where income is derived, by way of deposit into a local community development bank serving that location. In that locales are part of EU and therefore subject to well-developed rule of law, corruption issues should not present insurmountable barriers such as in Crimea.

Fifty percent of surplus will be retained by P-CED for growth and expansion. Along the way, all employees of P-CED are to be paid at minimum a wage sufficient to guarantee a decent standard of living in accordance with the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The fundamental policy guide for P-CED is the International Bill of Human Rights. IBHR is comprised of Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant of Civil and Politial Rights, and International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. P-CED’s main focus falls within sphere the economic, social and cultural rights, ICESCR. In that the United States of America do not recognize those human rights and is the only industrialized country not to ratify ICESCR, P-CED operations are not yet compatible with underlying US policy and human rights commitments. In that sense, the US itself must be recommended as ‘not yet ready’, albeit for reasons quite dissimilar to those in Crimea. Thus the decision to first institute P-CED in Europe rather than the US. However, partnerships with US entities will be undertaken insofar as they advance the fulfilment of human rights where they are recognized across Europe under ICESCR. P-CED will also continue advocacy toward US ratification of ICESCR, and advocacy for economic rights in the US in particular. P-CED’s founder and first director is a member of the newly-formed US Human Rights Network.”

Where social enterprise as a movement stands on this issue is rather difficult to ascertain. I could find no argument, other than our own, for business to serve people ahead of shareholder returns - only statements like the one made by LAMH and this from the DTI in 2002, when the Blair Government made social enterprise part of government policy:

'A social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners' 

It doesn't say a lot about keeping employees alive, does it?

Our work in Russia and Crimea had identified such needs, since there was no public safety net and by the way things are going here now with government austerity measures, we may soon find ourselves in similar dire straits.     

LAMH is a charity which "provides workplace opportunities within a supportive environment for individuals who are long-term unemployed generally through long-standing health issues, family/personal circumstances and/or no previous or recent work history."

Willie McArthur, as far as I know is not related to John. is one who like my late colleague and myself have had longstanding heath issues while trying to gain support for their own social enterprise. Like ourselves, he has failed to find support from the social enterprise "support" community.

For us, social enterprise means an autonomous business entity. If a business can't afford to pay employees a living wage then like Walmart, it's a flawed business model which expects state benefit to pck up the tab.   

Willie says there's widespread misuse of taxpayers money and grants which demand a journalistic investigation, especially where OBEs and MBEs are handed out to those who fail.    

My disabilites are now minor, whereas those of my colleague cost him his life, as an American excluded from healthcare through poverty. The kind of private healthcare we seem to be headed toward, seemingly led by so called social enterprises. 

My local MP is now Minister for disabled persons and in an open letter, I remind him of the help he has given to myself and those we've tried to support. 

For Social Enterprise London, ICOF, the Social Enterprise Coalition and RISE SW, we were doing something they couldn;t assist with. SEC went as far as telling us that our work was beyond their current focus. I'd also tried the APPG on Social Enterprise and their chair Baroness Thonton who wasn't inclined to answer. As we can now see, social enterprise has become something of a comforable ride for a minority.

In 2009, when Skoll hosted a discussion about building a more efficient marketplace, it raised questions about the conflct between collaboration and competition  As my late colleague put it:

"Can we build an ethical system based upon unethical behavior (such as violations of Intellectual Property Rights)?

"If we invent such a system, is it anything new? Or is it just a twist on the old system?

"One thing that can be collaborated openly is this: a Code of Ethics. But, whose ethics? What org(s) will enforce them, and how? Who decides who gets in, how, and why? "

I wrote recently to the EU Ombudsman, having learned that they now support a people-centred approach to business. That's what I shared with them openly in 2008 for the EU Citizens Consultation with our strategy plan for social enterprise in Ukraine. Shared openly as we had done with the original business model in the UK. .Once again, we find a club that won't have us as a member.

The reason is all to obvious. Since 2008 there has been EU funding set aside for social enterprise adding a new carriage to the EU gravy train.   

I draw their attention to one paragraph from what was shared in 2008:

"This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for "people-centered" economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine's poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a "top-down" approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first -- not secondarily, along the way or by the way."

Those being helped are not John McArthur, nor the colleague whose life was lost.