Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

[Dolph]

But you dont know the value of anyones labour really till you employ them and if they arent good enough then you get rid of them.

But you can make a good judgement via a recruitment process though, especially when you have a floor price for labour which covers a wide range of abilities, experience and education.

You can see it in supermarkets compared to 15 or so years ago, being able to work in multiple areas used to be a rewarded bonus, now people who are unable to multiskill dont even get in the door...

 

[Dolph]

Your idea that some peoples labour is not worth the minimum wage speaks volumes about you to be honest.

That I'm realistic rather than idealistic?

Employment is about economics, nothing else.

if you want to start creating artificial jobs that don't make economic sense, is that really any different from other workfare schemes?

 

[Rroff]

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.

I know that its quite complex to get people working like this, short/mixed hours, different people churning through, etc. but it boggles my mind we don't have something like this even if its more of a fallback for emergencies, etc. also one of the hardest things to do unless your really personally motivated is get up and keep going when your out of work doing a few hours of work a week can go a long way to getting people actually on their feet and doing something to find work and make it less attractive to people who just want to abuse the system (tho I suspect they will still find ways around it).

I know it has some complications with regards to training, health and safety/insurance and this is more the nature of an example but for instance around here after the flooding a lot of stuff got backlogged because they had multiple experienced people tied up on one job where they could have had 1 experienced person supervising and 2-3 "volunteers" doing some of the work. I'm sure the job center has on their books plenty of people with relevant experience/abilities who could have been pulled in to do a few hours. (obviously in reality its a bit more complicated but it makes far more sense than what normally happens with people either given no help/support and basically left to do nothing or pushed onto silly work schemes that help no one except to line some private companies finances).

 

[jsmoke]

They will just tighten up the system and make it more unbearably legalistic.

 

[Danthus]

Employment is about people, business is about people.

Sadly far to many people like you Dolph can't see this and spend more time looking at numbers on a spreadsheet.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

For those that are willing and able to work should have the right to such work - a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Those that are able to work but are unwilling to - well that's a different issue - and not one that workfare was aiming to tackle anyway.

 

[Haggisman]

Employment is about people, business is about people.

Sadly far to many people like you Dolph can't see this and spend more time looking at numbers on a spreadsheet.

If you employ someone for 30 hours a week who spends 45 mins of each hour dossing around, they're only effectively doing 7.5 hours work. Should they be paid the same as someone who works efficiently for the full 30 hours?

Following on from that, if each employee only does 7.5 hours of work and there are 30 hours worth of work to be done, the employer will need to employ 4 employees to do the job of 1 - and according to your logic will need to pay them each for 30 hours of work. So the employers labour cost quadruples, and they go out of business and all of these people lose their jobs. Still sound like such a good idea?

 

[Mr-White]

She's only made finding work even more difficult, no one will want to employ her knowing she doesn't want to work.

MW

 

[Danthus]

If you employ someone for 30 hours a week who spends 45 mins of each hour dossing around, they're only effectively doing 7.5 hours work. Should they be paid the same as someone who works efficiently for the full 30 hours?

Following on from that, if each employee only does 7.5 hours of work and there are 30 hours worth of work to be done, the employer will need to employ 4 employees to do the job of 1 - and according to your logic will need to pay them each for 30 hours of work. So the employers labour cost quadruples, and they go out of business and all of these people lose their jobs. Still sound like such a good idea?

Where have I advocated employing people who do not perform their duties?

 

[jsmoke]

What do you do with people that have been out of work for a while, are a bit rough around the edges, maybe drink issues(no offense) low on self esteem and no skills. They couldn't really cope in an office/retail environment, or maybe they can.

 

[Dolph]

For those that are willing and able to work should have the right to such work - a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Those that are able to work but are unwilling to - well that's a different issue - and not one that workfare was aiming to tackle anyway.

The idea of the 'right to work' just creates workfare by another name.

why is it acceptable to make up jobs for people that they have to do to recieve a wage from the state, but not ro make up jobs that people have to do to receive benefits from the state? what is the difference apart from semantics?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

She's only made finding work even more difficult, no one will want to employ her knowing she doesn't want to work.

MW

There's a difference between not wanting to work and not wanting to be exploited.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The idea of the 'right to work' just creates workfare by another name.

why is it acceptable to make up jobs for people that they have to do to recieve a wage from the state, but not ro make up jobs that people have to do to receive benefits from the state? what is the difference apart from semantics?

The bit in bold - I've no issue with that. As long as it's at min wage.

I don't know why we don't have a program of public works to utilise the unemployed - similar to when all the mills got closed down in the 1800's - that created many of the wonderful parks, public open spaces and civic buildings that the North of England is graced with.

http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk/m_...theme=overview&crumb=Lancashire+Cotton+Famine

 

[pingwing]

She's only made finding work even more difficult, no one will want to employ her knowing she doesn't want to work.

MW

Doesn't want to work in Poundland...

She's highlighted the key problem with the scheme (to quote the simpsons) "Scott, things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the unemployment office. Joblessness is no longer just for Philosophy majors - useful people are starting to feel the pinch. ", basically she wants a job or a bit of help getting into something that she will actually be able to do, not standing about in Poundland. The back to work scheme is tailored for people who have exactly no qualifications and are sitting about claiming benefits. She's annoyed that despite qualifications and a will to learn she's getting a raw deal from the job centre and being lumped with the bums to do something that just wont help her...

It's a painful situation coming out of education with qualifications and finding the best you can get is being forced into working at Poundland.

 

[nydryl]

Instead of having these people working for private companies why not have them helping in understaffed government areas where any knock-on effects on the job markets will be negligible. Simple things like cleaning up graffiti, litter picking in parks, even shadowing and assisting in higher skilled jobs.

 

[ubersonic]

Your idea that some peoples labour is not worth the minimum wage speaks volumes about you to be honest.

You do know that apprentices get less than half the minimum wage yeah?

 

[Mr-White]

There's a difference between not wanting to work and not wanting to be exploited.

Like she exploits the benefits system. If she really wanted a job she would work through it and move on. Now she's sat back at home doing nothing, even less employable than she was while she was working.

The only way she'll get a job she likes is if she works through jobs she doesn't until she makes it, she won't just be given the high paid job she wants while sat on benefits.

MW

 

[zenf]

If you employ someone for 30 hours a week who spends 45 mins of each hour dossing around, they're only effectively doing 7.5 hours work. Should they be paid the same as someone who works efficiently for the full 30 hours?

If that was the case, wouldn't the employer inform the job-centre that the JSA claimant wasn't fulfilling their requirement, and then the claimaint would get nothing? If they want their JSA, they have to actually work for the 30 hours, do they not?

 

[Haggisman]

Where have I advocated employing people who do not perform their duties?

Here:

Your idea that some peoples labour is not worth the minimum wage speaks volumes about you to be honest.

If you have a job that commands minimum wage, and some people are only able/willing to perform 10, 25, 50% of the required workload, how is that level of labour worth the same as someone who is able to perform 100% of the required workload?

If that was the case, wouldn't the employer inform the job-centre that the JSA claimant wasn't fulfilling their requirement, and then the claimaint would get nothing? If they want their JSA, they have to actually work for the 30 hours, do they not?

In theory yes - which is the point Dolph was making, however OldCoals appears to think that that level of labour is still worth minimum wage.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Doesn't want to work in Poundland...

She's highlighted the key problem with the scheme (to quote the simpsons) "Scott, things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the unemployment office. Joblessness is no longer just for Philosophy majors - useful people are starting to feel the pinch. ", basically she wants a job or a bit of help getting into something that she will actually be able to do, not standing about in Poundland. The back to work scheme is tailored for people who have exactly no qualifications and are sitting about claiming benefits. She's annoyed that despite qualifications and a will to learn she's getting a raw deal from the job centre and being lumped with the bums to do something that just wont help her...

Exactly - place her with a tech firm or management firm and I'll bet she'd work her socks off. What credible experience relating to her status and eductation could she possibly gain from working at Poundland!

That a job you have before or during Uni - not after!