Back-to-work scheme ruled lawful by High Court

ince said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19146347

What do people think about calling these people lazy in the article?

Do they want or expect something for nothing.
Click to expand...
Well, in a country with more people than jobs I fail to see the logic in this kind of "Back to work" scheme.

Once we have a job surplus fine, I'd be in favour of something to aid the long term unemployed get back into work (training, work experience).

But - free labour for massive companies, undermining existing low paid jobs, giving companies an unfair advantage & discouraging them employing staff for the jobs they get free labour for?.

No thanks.

If they are going to force them to work, they could at least pay them the national minimum wage for the hours they do - at the very least.

NOTE - Plenty has been banding around about how "optional" it is, I've read conflicting reports on this. (the above is on the assumption it's indeed forced, by threat of withdrawing JSA) - if it isn't forced then they clearly need to be more open about the whole thing to those on JSA (which the judge mentioned in the article).
 
I think it's a load of toss.

In that article you've got somebody who had a job and somebody studying to improve their lot.

The experience they're being offered is unpaid work at poundland which isn't leading to an actual job afterwards.

It's not like they're being offered honest work and turning it down.

How is it lazy to be dubious of a useless scheme?


Something for nothing... what is the benefit to society of this scheme?

What am I the tax payer getting out of this in return for these people getting benefits? It isn't giving them useful experience. It isn't leading on to a job.



I suppose it's probably aimed at the lowest common denominator you see in the JC wearing their tracksuits or PJs who've never been employed but to me it just reflects a) the basic brokeness of the gov'ts thinking on this. You can pretend structural causes aren't there all you like but when the economy is this bad it's very silly and b) the basic inability of the government to do anything useful. If the jobs aren't there afterwards how is it even helping those people?
 
"Those who oppose this process are actually opposed to hard work and they are harming the life chances of unemployed young people who are trying to get on," a DWP spokesperson said.

What a ridiculous statement, no, people are opposed to working for less than minimum wage in a dead end temporary job with very little chance of full time employment gained through such a work scheme.
 
I'm with those above on this, the scheme is flawed and in no way actually helps people back to work.

A heavy goods vehicle driver is going to get absolutely nothing from being forced to work for free in a retail shop stacking shelves.

Nither is a university graduate, who's clearly a lot smarter than the average person who would be employed in such a store.
 
elmarko1234 said:
NOTE - Plenty has been banding around about how "optional" it is, I've read conflicting reports on this. (the above is on the assumption it's indeed forced, by threat of withdrawing JSA) - if it isn't forced then they clearly need to be more open about the whole thing to those on JSA (which the judge mentioned in the article).
Click to expand...

Agreed, the judge said they need to be more clear on this matter but the DWP are appealing that decision, even though it's widely known that they often threaten to take away your JSA if you refuse to take part in the work 'scheme' when quite often technically you don't have to take part.
 
elmarko1234 said:
Well, in a country with more people than jobs I fail to see the logic in this kind of "Back to work" scheme.

Once we have a job surplus fine, I'd be in favour of something to aid the long term unemployed get back into work (training, work experience).

But - free labour for massive companies, undermining existing low paid jobs, giving companies an unfair advantage & discouraging them employing staff for the jobs they get free labour for?.

No thanks.

If they are going to force them to work, they could at least pay them the national minimum wage for the hours they do - at the very least.

NOTE - Plenty has been banding around about how "optional" it is, I've read conflicting reports on this. (the above is on the assumption it's indeed forced, by threat of withdrawing JSA) - if it isn't forced then they clearly need to be more open about the whole thing to those on JSA (which the judge mentioned in the article).
Click to expand...

+1

this isnt helping anyone in reality.
 
Ascendancy said:
How can forcing people to work for less than NMW be legal?
Click to expand...

It's classed as training by the government and so is exempt from NMW, this is nothing but exploitation though and at a time when there are increasingly fewer jobs should we be replacing those that are available with government funded free labour?

There was an excellent cartoon I saw a while back with a man being made redundant from his job and then ending up back there on one of these schemes, that pretty much sums it up for me.
 
Last edited:
elmarko1234 said:
Well, in a country with more people than jobs I fail to see the logic in this kind of "Back to work" scheme.

Once we have a job surplus fine, I'd be in favour of something to aid the long term unemployed get back into work (training, work experience).

But - free labour for massive companies, undermining existing low paid jobs, giving companies an unfair advantage & discouraging them employing staff for the jobs they get free labour for?.

No thanks.

If they are going to force them to work, they could at least pay them the national minimum wage for the hours they do - at the very least.

NOTE - Plenty has been banding around about how "optional" it is, I've read conflicting reports on this. (the above is on the assumption it's indeed forced, by threat of withdrawing JSA) - if it isn't forced then they clearly need to be more open about the whole thing to those on JSA (which the judge mentioned in the article).
Click to expand...

My neighbour was told by his A4E 'advisor' that he could refuse to do it but doing so would be classed as 'making himself unavailable for work' which under JSA terms would mean he lost his claim for JSA.

As for the Gov't calling it training, an apprenticeship is training and that's at a NMW of £2.80/hr

Most of these work placements are for 35 hrs a week and JSA pays around £70 a week which equals £2 so it's less than the NMW for training.

The only benefactors of this scheme are the private companies (which since this hit the news have pulled out of the scheme) & the "back to work" programme runners such as A4E etc.

My neighbour says that A4E hound him for details of every interview he gets, despite him doing all the work himself & A4E doing nothing to help him because they want to claim that they got him back into work and claim a nice juicy bonus from the public coffers.
 
As they still receive their benefits I fail to see how it constitutes being unlawful or "slave labour"....the idea is to get back into work....not to be given work according to what you want to do or what you are qualified to do and nothing else. It is simply part of the criteria for claiming unemployment benefits that you periodically attend work experience for a fortnight......if you don't want to then simply do not do it, it is optional and you could always get a job yourselves....... part of the problem is not that there are no jobs, but that people are too fussy over what jobs they will do or what they see as beneath them, such as working in Poundland with a geology degree......
 
Last edited:
So working in poundland is training. Riiight. What for? Is there some form of job ladder for working in shops of Poundland -> Sainsbury's -> Boots -> McDonalds?
 
wkingsnorth said:
So working in poundland is training. Riiight. What for? Is there some form of job ladder for working in shops of Poundland -> Sainsbury's -> Boots -> McDonalds?
Click to expand...

It's not training, it's work experience and should be firmly focussed on people who have been out of work for quite sometime.
 
I think lots of long-term unemployed people are ... scared? to go back into work. It's like they're in a comfort zone on JSA and they find it difficult to get out of it, even though they know they should. I think this back to work program will help reduce the long term unemployed, because it forces you out of the comfort zone and makes you realise it's not so bad.

Having said that, it obviously doesn't apply to everyone and for a lot of people it's just going to be an absolute pain in the backside, and a barrier in the way of job searching.

It doesn't half create an incentive to find work quickly though...
 
wkingsnorth said:
I still don't think that it would somehow help. I suppose it could work as a stopgap but really they should be either paid. given training (or work experience) that could actually help them really
Click to expand...

Any work experience is helpful, it doesn't have to be in the career path of the individual. lets be honest, if you are unemployed you have no career path and any job is better than no job....the work experience allows the individual to consider other options when they are unemployed and their chosen field or career is unable to offer them employment. Unemployment Benefit should not be seen or treated as a viable stopgap so you can decide on the next step in our career or as a waypost when your chosen career has no vacancies....other options must be explored.
 
The only problem that is important here is the fact that its setting a precedent, why would corporations want to pay their workers if they can just do this?

Even when the jobs return to the UK, I don't see how they would care to go back to the way things were.

We cannot have two systems of work, one usually works out far better for the more oppressive group and it stays that way until people fight back.

So unless this scheme can provide something like a federal society, it sucks, utterly.
 
Castiel said:
As they still receive their benefits I fail to see how it constitutes being unlawful or "slave labour"....the idea is to get back into work....not to be given work according to what you want to do or what you are qualified to do and nothing else. It is simply part of the criteria for claiming unemployment benefits that you periodically attend work experience for a fortnight......if you don't want to then simply do not do it, it is optional and you could always get a job yourselves....... part of the problem is not that there are no jobs, but that people are too fussy over what jobs they will do or what they see as beneath them, such as working in Poundland with a geology degree......
Click to expand...
Do you not see the inherent contradiction involved in this - "claiming unemployment benefits that you periodically attend work".

Just to note, I cut out the work "training" deliberately - that's because it's not training - nobody has to be trained on how to stack a shelf in Pound-Land.

Unemployment benefits are for people who are not working, not people who are doing a full weeks work - at the very least they deserve NMW for the hours they put in.

This at least may give them a taste of the rewards of full time employment & encourage them to find a job, but giving them no additional reward for work done is essentially breaking the "carrot/stick" style reward system - I see no logical pathways which could lead to this stupid idea.

People are not being sold it as optional, they are being coerced into believing it's mandatory & once signed up the claimant can lose JSA if they refuse.

I'd like to compare a list of political donors to a list of companies who have been taking advantage of this scheme, as it's giving certain private businesses free labour.

You can all the benefits of this idea ten-fold with a few minor alterations.

1. All "free labour" is put into local council activities/local charities/community projects - this may instil them with a sense of self-esteem, while still getting them out of bed & into a routine - they may even feel good about the work done.

2. They get national minimum wage for the work done - this will give them a taste of what they can earn, something which has a better chance of actually working at those they wish to target (the minority of real lazy ones).

The two points above really do make all the difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom