Bleeping furious right now!

  • Thread starter Thread starter C.#
  • Start date Start date
This is a bit of a double edged sword for me. While I agree something needs to be done to help people back into work, this just seems like a way for a company to get cheap labour. They must have a vacancy, so why not fill it properly and give someone a full time job rather than this vague "10 men enter, only 1 can win" scheme ?

Apart from the obvious that it's just cheap labour, and the government are probably throwing extra cash at them for helping them fudge the dole figures :/

Things is, it's not going to target the 'hardcore' dolies who just seem to get away with being jobless forever. I know lads I went to school with who haven't worked a day in their life and we're pushing 40 now. They never get sent on these schemes, and in the unfortunate circumstance that the job centre line up an interview for them, they just turn up looking scruffy and disinterested and walk away scott free.

I know one lad that claims to have 'mental issues' when there is nothing wrong with him. Hasn't worked for years now. He likes a bit of amphet, so when he has to go for his sickness interviews he just stays up for days on end, turns up looking retarded, and gets away with it!
 
Wow the comparisons to slavery/slave labour are awful.

If you don't want to do it then don't, simple as. I've been unemployed for a few months a few times and I've got out there and searched for/applied to plenty of jobs without ever going on the dole or using the job centre do its definitely a choice.
 
I think being placed in a job is a good idea but what id have object to is working 40+ hours a week for just £50 odd quid a week. Out of that £50 i suppose the youre expected to pay travel fares and feed yourself whilst at work?
 
Surely they cant just pay the standard £200 and expect everyone to do full time hours/5 days and travel?

I know if it was me on job seekers having to do it on £200 I would be spending around £95 p/m on bus travel to the nearest town add digs on top of that then I would have like £15 for food p/m. Surely that defeats the point of having the benefits in the first place for some people?
 
The new system is exploited by companies though.
My mates boyfriend is 'full time' employed at the local Argos, yet since this scheme came into force most of the permanent staff have had their hours reduced, and thus income reduced, and suddenly all this 'free' labour from the job centre has turned up.

Not really fair on existing staff, not really fair that they have jobs people could be doing and getting paid for, but instead are happy to exploit free labour, and its not fair that these people placed there get experience of nothing other then sweeping the stock room floor essentially.
 
Xiler said:
Surely that defeats the point of having the benefits in the first place for some people?
Click to expand...

For honest people who are struggling with the times, yes.

But that's not the point of the benefit changes... this government (and to a reasonable extent, the last one, too) have gone pretty much out to colour anyone on benefits as a scrounger work-shy lazy scummer. Of which there are some, admittedly. But the system tars everyone with the same brush, reduces all to the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't say much that's good about the way we treat people in our 'modern western society'. You judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable members; be they the elderly or ill, or those who are falling out of the wrong side of the economy after loosing their careers or regular jobs due to recessionary forces far beyond their control.

Alpherah said:
The new system is exploited by companies though.
My mates boyfriend is 'full time' employed at the local Argos, yet since this scheme came into force most of the permanent staff have had their hours reduced, and thus income reduced, and suddenly all this 'free' labour from the job centre has turned up.

Not really fair on existing staff, not really fair that they have jobs people could be doing and getting paid for, but instead are happy to exploit free labour, and its not fair that these people placed there get experience of nothing other then sweeping the stock room floor essentially.
Click to expand...

It was never really about being fair to those who deserve fairness. The fact that most of these schemes are so ill conceived from the outset leaves them wide open to abuse and sharp practise by business. And for business it's all about the money, employees are sort of secondary to the issue - more so in the wake of the financial problems we've had. Companies can do what they like as regards their workers, because they know damn well that there's a hundred other people out there who will be willing to be taken for a ride, for a little while, at least. Add to that government money on subsidised schemes, it just makes it easier to load the dice in their favour.

Not that I look at all of this with a jaundiced eye or anything... :D
 
Isn't this scheme entirely voluntary?

As for big companies only using it for free labour, well no, not entirely. It will cost them money to manage it and it will cost them time and effort to deal with staff that quite possibly don't want to be there (though why volunteer if that is the case?). However it does give them a relatively cheap method of finding new employees, they can offer jobs to the "Work Experience" people that perform well.

The "Work Experience" volunteer gets some actual experience to pop on a CV, a reference and the possibility of a full time job. All improving their employment prospects. Of course if they do not like the idea they could just not volunteer.
 
If by voluntary you mean without financial coercion, then no, they are most definitely not voluntary.
Candidates are encouraged to find their own work placements, but the starting and continuing of the placement scheme is entirely mandatory, should you be eligible.

Knowing most of the large businesses that I have worked for in the past, not one of them would enter such a scheme if there were not profit in it for them. To do otherwise just does not compute

As for the prospect of a full-time job at the end of the placement... well, that all depends on what you term a 'full-time job' - is it a paid temporary contract for a limited term ~ up to 3-6 months, or is it a salaried job with no contractual end date? Chances are it's a temp job, most likely up to 12 weeks for the new temporary workers rights. The reality is that there's no job at the end.

I could be entirely wrong in what I think, but I've heard nothing concrete to contradict my position, having talked to lots of different people who have found themselves out of work, some of them for the first time in a long time indeed.

I know there's an 'us and them' thing going on here that is often stereotyped, erroneously so in many cases, but too many different people are all saying the same thing. These people include jobcentre staff who see and hear many of the results of these work schemes and talk to those who have participated to no real advantage, other than they get to keep their dole money for another couple of months. That's not progress.
 
Last edited:
Surely they cant just pay the standard £200 and expect everyone to do full time hours/5 days and travel?
Click to expand...

You get travel expenses. So it actually costs more than just giving them JSA. with only one out of 10 getting the job (maybe) you can start to see how backwards the scheme is. Just like all the ones in the past.
 
RDM said:
As for big companies only using it for free labour, well no, not entirely. It will cost them money to manage it and it will cost them time and effort to deal with staff that quite possibly don't want to be there (though why volunteer if that is the case?). However it does give them a relatively cheap method of finding new employees, they can offer jobs to the "Work Experience" people that perform well.
Click to expand...

The companies involved have been paid to take and train people. They have been awarded 7 year contracts, current findings predict that 80-90% of these companies will have their contracts withdrawn within 3 years of starting for failing to provide a suitable standard of training.
 
Dolph said:
Shock horror as Taxpayer money now comes with caveats...
Click to expand...

Shock horror as another ill thought out work scheme costs tax payer more money for very little benefit, while pitting our youth against the state.

It really is a nightmare.

You talk as if this is the first time it has been tried. It isn't it's been tried, tested, failed, cost extra silly money and zero lessons have been learnt from the ones that have gone on before them.
 
shadesofgrey said:
Shock horror as another ill thought out work scheme costs tax payer more money for very little benefit, while pitting our youth against the state.

It really is a nightmare.

You talk as if this is the first time it has been tried. It isn't it's been tried, tested, failed, cost extra silly money and zero lessons have been learnt from the ones that have gone on before them.
Click to expand...


So 5-10% get employment. That's quite a saving actually.
It could be better, but it's certainly better than just handing out money.
 
I need staff, I had over 100 people apply for a job at my care home. Compare this 1 year ago and I was lucky to get 5. Also the quality of people applying has increased so we can be fussy. The home care side of the business is growing and I have had only 2 applicants in 1 week. If anyone lives up in Carlisle I have jobs going part and full time.

Jobs are out their if you look for them.
 
Glaucus said:
So 5-10% get employment. That's quite a saving actually.
It could be better, but it's certainly better than just handing out money.
Click to expand...

Not really going by current information its most likely going to be a failed scheme, both on what it achieves for the people and financially. Paying these companies to train JSA claimants would be considered a success if it makes the estimated 40% of young people find work that it set out to achieve. Current predictions put it at 26% and showing signs of getting even worse.

a lot of people don’t even get a full time job through it, they get a 8-12hour job, which they can still claim some benefits on top of. I’m not sure if these people still count as unemployed officially but they still are dependent on the government if they cannot provide for themselves.

The government should be focusing on creating a market that allows these people to get a job and work for what they need, not wasting 3-4 billion on such schemes which for the most part are inefficient and abused.
 
Fuzz said:
So she gets the £200 a month JSA to sit on her ass and play console games or..

gets £200 a month
gains experience in the workplace
is looked favourably on because of doing voluntary work
is able to add that work experience to her CV
increase her prospects of gaining employment at a later date
is able to contribute her time and effort toward the Economy.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely but it has to be fair as has been said. I used to sometimes only get 7 hours a week which meant I would often get less than I would on JSA! It was the fact I did get overtime most months meant I was a little bit better off. Where is the incentive to go out and work even if it is such low hours.

I'd say do one days full time work or two 4 hour shifts per week to earn the JSA and it leaves time to arrange interviews etc.
 
Will said:
I'd query the 55 hours per week element personally (and I speak as someone who works as an employment advisor for jobcentreplus so I do get to know about these schemes ;)). The store may certainly be open that many hours a week, and as such the shifts she will be given may be on a rota spread out over the whole 55 hour week for the entire time she is there, but she should not be expected to work more than 30 hours each week.
Click to expand...

That sounds much more reasonable to me.

Sounds like somebody was elaborating on the facts to increase sympathy !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom