Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

CosmicClown

CosmicClown

CosmicClown

Associate
Joined
22 Sep 2012
Posts
664
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928

The government's back-to-work schemes have suffered a setback after Appeal Court judges agreed with a university graduate's claim that unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

Cait Reilly, 24, claimed that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland store breached laws on forced labour.

Judges quashed the regulations underpinning the work schemes.

Solicitor Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented the duo, said: "This judgment sends Iain Duncan Smith back to the drawing board to make fresh regulations which are fair and comply with the court's ruling.

"Until that time, nobody can be lawfully forced to participate in schemes affected such as the Work Programme and the Community Action Programme.

"All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them."


Yay for justice.
 
sounds like grounds for a wholesale reform of our tax and benefit system to remove conditionality completely.
 
Dolph said:
sounds like grounds for a wholesale reform of our tax and benefit system to remove conditionality completely.
Click to expand...

So, JSA is £71 per week. National minimum wage is £6.19 per hour. So that's 11.5hrs @ min wage.

I don't see why they don't just require JSA claimants to do 11.5hrs work, instead of the 30 hrs they currently try to (illegally) enforce.
 
Good. Maybe we will actually see some sensible, helpful schemes put in place not that I'm holding my breath.
 
amigafan2003 said:
So, JSA is £71 per week. National minimum wage is £6.19 per hour. So that's 11.5hrs @ min wage.

I don't see why they don't just require JSA claimants to do 11.5hrs work, instead of the 30 hrs they currently try to (illegally) enforce.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Anything more than that is unpaid, and basically slave labour. Usually for a multimillion pound company that is coining it in.
 
I don't like the idea of them using private companies for this scheme because it reeks of potential for corruption, it also negatively affects the private job market. The unseen consequence is that those jobs were not available in the private sector because the government allocated them to JSA claimants with some round about back hand deal. So not only are the JSA claimants not getting paid for it, but there is less jobs in the market as a result.

What they should do is make the JSA claimants do government related work for the 11.5 hours as mentioned by amigafan2003 per week. This way they won't be affecting the private sector job market and the government can stop spending so much money on staff. when arguably about 80% of the government spending goes to public sector employee salaries and their unions.

As usual government "solutions" just create more problems and don't even solve the original problem of too many people on JSA.

I still think the best answer to JSA and the welfare state is just to cut them all, let them deal with it.
 
Last edited:
amigafan2003 said:
So, JSA is £71 per week. National minimum wage is £6.19 per hour. So that's 11.5hrs @ min wage.

I don't see why they don't just require JSA claimants to do 11.5hrs work, instead of the 30 hrs they currently try to (illegally) enforce.
Click to expand...

becuase their labour may not be worth that much?

incidentally, you might want to read the judgement in full, it is far from the win long term that many places are portraying it as, and explictly states that there is no human rights breach and it absolutely is not forced labour...
 
amigafan2003 said:
So, JSA is £71 per week. National minimum wage is £6.19 per hour. So that's 11.5hrs @ min wage.

I don't see why they don't just require JSA claimants to do 11.5hrs work, instead of the 30 hrs they currently try to (illegally) enforce.
Click to expand...

I would wholey agree with a system like that, as it currently stands it is shocking and I'm glad the courts ruled against it.
 
I still don't understand why everyone kicked off about this scheme...

You worked 11.5 hrs a week and got paid your standard £71 which you would earn anyway except you weren't sat on your **** at home watching Jeremy Kyle

So the reason why people kick off cause they had to work for the money...which is what working people do anyway...and there was also the prospect of full time/ higher paid wages at the end...:confused:

Edit: Genuinely confused, not trolling! Can someone explain it to me like I am a 5 year old (which today I feel like :p)
 
Dolph said:
becuase their labour may not be worth that much?
Click to expand...

If their labour isnt worth that much because they are lazy etc then they could be kicked off the scheme and can be penalised accordingly. If you work, you should be entitled to minimum wage.
 
trixilux said:
I still don't understand why everyone kicked off about this scheme...

You worked 11.5 hrs a week and got paid your standard £71 which you would earn anyway except you weren't sat on your **** at home watching Jeremy Kyle

So the reason why people kick off cause they had to work for the money...which is what working people do anyway...and there was also the prospect of full time/ higher paid wages at the end...:confused:

Edit: Genuinely confused, not trolling! Can someone explain it to me like I am a 5 year old (which today I feel like :p)
Click to expand...

They didnt work 11.5 hours, they had to work 30 or so hours so didnt even earn minimum wage.
 
trixilux said:
I still don't understand why everyone kicked off about this scheme...

You worked 11.5 hrs a week and got paid your standard £71 which you would earn anyway except you weren't sat on your **** at home watching Jeremy Kyle
Click to expand...

But you didn't work 11.5 hours you worked a full week.
 
Bear said:
If their labour isnt worth that much because they are lazy etc then they could be kicked off the scheme and can be penalised accordingly. If you work, you should be entitled to minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Then you need to accept that some people (especially the young and those with below average abilities) will be unemployable because the labour they can offer is not worth the rate.

Remember, employment is a result of value, not regulation
 
OldCoals said:
People Dolph, real people, not numbers on a spreadsheet.
Click to expand...

In the context of the reply, the two are the same thing. employment has a purpose, it adds value to the business. it is not a right to have a job irrespective of abililty or effort.
 
Dolph said:
Then you need to accept that some people (especially the young and those with below average abilities) will be unemployable because the labour they can offer is not worth the rate.

Remember, employment is a result of value, not regulation
Click to expand...

But you dont know the value of anyones labour really till you employ them even in highly skilled jobs and if they arent good enough then you get rid of them. Who is to say the individuals labour is worth very little, they could be enthusiatic and hard working and lets face it, the jobs they would be put into are low skilled, so its only application that matters.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
In the context of the reply, the two are the same thing. employment has a purpose, it adds value to the business. it is not a right to have a job irrespective of abililty or effort.
Click to expand...

Your idea that some peoples labour is not worth the minimum wage speaks volumes about you to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom