Five Supreme Court Justices have ruled that the British government's controversial 'back to work' scheme was legally flawed.
Under the scheme, people who refused to work for free while claiming Jobseekers' Allowance had their benefits withdrawn.
Twenty-four-year-old graduate Cait Reilly launched a legal challenge after she was made to work unpaid at a local Poundland discount store to qualify for welfare payouts. She claimed this amounted to 'slave labour'.
She initially lost a High Court case, but was successful in the Court of Appeal. This is what led Work and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith to seek a final decision in the UK's highest court.
The ruling now means that anyone who had their Jobseeker's Allowance withdrawn after refusing to take part in the scheme can reclaim the money that was withheld.
However, despite the obvious blow to its reputation, it wasn't all bad news for the Government. The judges agreed that the rules did not amount to forced labour.
Both sides in the debate will be able to claim victory, but I think this one is set to put the Coalition Government under more strain to make things fairer when it comes to people earning a decent living.
Figures out in the last couple of weeks show some pretty scary statistics: the cost of living in the UK is rising faster than the rest of Europe.
Using the current Jobseekers' Allowance rates, if people work 40 hours a week for free, they will receive a basic £56.80 (around $90), if they're aged between 16-24 and £71.70 (around $114.00) if they're 25 or older. This equates to a maximum of £1.80 (approximately $2.87) per hour!
The National Minimum Wage Rates start at £2.68 ($4.29) per hour for an apprentice.
As my American friends would say: "Go figure!"
Thoughts on customer service, communication and, of course, reputation management.