Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

[The Geezer]

Thank God that Trade Unions still exist, looks like half of the GD commentators come from the Thatcher era.

This was clear and simple expliotation. She was unhappy of having to cancel her voluntary work which she was doing to gain experience in her field of education but instead the government deemed working at Poundland would give her more experience.

She was paid less than the minimum wage for her hours regardless of where the funds come from. The minimum wage is there so no-one is exploited by employers, it has been fought for over decades let's not get blinded by the welfare system and the minimum wage.

The multi-national employers were not doing this out the kindness of their hearts, look at what Tesco did when they found out about the scheme they recognised exploitation immediately.

 

[Dolph]

She was doing voluntary work at a museum, she wasn't sitting on her arse all day doing nothing. And since when was Geology a dud degree?

The taxpayer should not be funding someone's choice to do voluntary work, at least not while we have a conditional benefit system.

 

[Skillmister]

How is forcing her into what is effectively free unskilled labour helping anything?

WITH BACK TO WORK SCHEME

Woman forced to work at Poundland.
One less full time job in the economy - no taxes payed.
Cost to tax payer: £71 a week.
More unemployed as a result of scheme.

WITHOUT BACK TO WORK SCHEME

Woman seeks job/watches Jermey Kyle.
One extra full time job in the economy - government earns tax from it.
Cost to tax payer: £71 a week.
Less unemployed.

It's not rocket science to see the country is worse off under it?

I've forgotten the figures i was given by my advisor, i think i posted them in the job seekers thread a while back, but the number of people getting jobs once they have been put on to the back to work scheme drops dramatically. I was "advised" to sign off once i am required to go on it as a better option

It's strange, where are the jobs for the back to work scheme coming from? Surely they are replacing full time minimum wage jobs?

 

[Moothead2]

The taxpayer should not be funding someone's choice to do voluntary work, at least not while we have a conditional benefit system.

So instead they should be replacing full time workers meaning less tax paid in and more taken out?

 

[Dolph]

So instead they should be replacing full time workers meaning less tax paid in and more taken out?

As I have already explained, this is a highly dubious line of argument due to the huge cost difference between having a placement and employing someone on minimum wage meaning the displacement ratio is far from 1:1.

 

[Skillmister]

As I have already explained, this is a highly dubious line of argument due to the huge cost difference between having a placement and employing someone on minimum wage meaning the displacement ratio is far from 1:1.

It's hardly a placement if they are doing the exact same job though?

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

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...

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

Meanwhile theres no-one actually getting the job because they just take on the next freelabour worker instead?

Rather than create a "job" they create "training" for people to put towards getting a job.

Wasn't there a report showing a shockingly low % actually end up with a job after their "course/experience/training" whatever it's now being called?

 

[elmarko]

The taxpayer should not be funding someone's choice to do voluntary work, at least not while we have a conditional benefit system.

So the taxpayer should be funding work which has no real social value or work experience value (stacking a shelf for pound-land) to subsidise private profits?.

 

[edscdk]

How is forcing her into what is effectively free unskilled labour helping anything?

2 candidates appl for a job both equally skilled both have been on benefits for a year... both have stupid pointless half baked degree's

one has a good reference from pound land stating how punctual and hard working they are.. they can tell you about their pride in doing a good job despite it not being their chosen career

who gets the job?

 

[Freakbro]

2 candidates appl for a job both equally skilled both have been on benefits for a year... both have stupid pointless half baked degree's

one has a good reference from pound land stating how punctual and hard working they are.. they can tell you about their pride in doing a good job despite it not being their chosen career

In your fictitious scenario your forgot to mention the other had spent their time volunteering caring for the elderly and rescuing sick animals.

who gets the job?

Since the job is about caring for the elderly and rescuing sick animals....the second one.

 

[Horse Pop]

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...

This is a fundamental issue with unemployment in Britain at the moment and with the Job Centre.

The help is tailored for the very lowest common denominator.

They don't have much to offer you if you can read/write/wash and put on a suit before an interview.

 

[Stretch]

2 candidates appl for a job both equally skilled both have been on benefits for a year... both have stupid pointless half baked degree's

one has a good reference from pound land stating how punctual and hard working they are.. they can tell you about their pride in doing a good job despite it not being their chosen career

who gets the job?

Your hypothetical situation would never exist in the real world. Two people are never that equal. If two young people had similar educational attainment, I would give the job to person who came over best at interview.

 

[Fenris]

I actually agree that forcing people to work for a private company is ridiculous.

If they are forced to work, make them do things within their own community or their local council.

 

[Martini1991]

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

He probably is, but that has nothing to do with his reply.
I currently see a lot of these apprenticeships as a way to get employees cheap and I'm currently in one, although not at apprenticeship minimum, a bit higher and a job at the end of it.

Although what I do isn't really apprenticeship stuff.
I'm pretty irreplaceable as things are.

 

[Skillmister]

At least an apprenticeship you might learn something, unlike stacking shelves at poundland.

 

[Martini1991]

Apprentices earn qualifications, I haven't seen many apprentice positions for shelf stackers and mop pushers.

Bar the qualification, you get some weird "apprenticeships" such as a warehouse apprentice, which is essentially just a cheap way to getting a labour worker in the warehouse, I mean all he's going to be doing is going back and forth with boxes.

At least an apprenticeship you might learn something, unlike stacking shelves at poundland.

I can't say I'm learning much in the way of being taught, I'm just doing a job role, I was given like a 5 minute introduction to what I needed to do.

Some of the stuff I'm doing I've learnt since being here, but that's because no body can do it, so I've had to do it myself and learn.

So your saying if two people came for a job with the exact same qualifications and nothing in it except that one had never worked a day in their life whereas the other had a CV with previous 8-5 employment, you would just pick one at random?

I got my position over 3 over people, all who had previous jobs, I had none.
I just destroyed the interview, I was given the place before I left the room (And there was still some lad waiting to be interviewed, but I'd already destroyed his chance)

 

[Skillmister]

Bar the qualification, you get some weird "apprenticeships" such as a warehouse apprentice, which is essentially just a cheap way to getting a labour worker in the warehouse, I mean all he's going to be doing is going back and forth with boxes.

I can't say I'm learning much in the way of being taught, I'm just doing a job role, I was given like a 5 minute introduction to what I needed to do.

Some of the stuff I'm doing I've learnt since being here, but that's because no body can do it, so I've had to do it myself and learn.

Key word being 'might'.

Either way i'd happily do 9 hours of shelf stacking for my JSA if it was asked of me, but there is no way i'm doing 30 hours of it for £56. Better off getting a couple of paper rounds.

 

[Martini1991]

Key word being 'might'.

Either way i'd do 9 hours of shelf stacking for my JSA if it was asked of me, but there is no way i'm doing 30 hours of it for £56. Better off getting a couple of paper rounds.

I did one of these work placements, think it was 35 hours for my dole.
Just doing administrator stuff. It was in a job centre.

They wouldn't pay anyone to do what I was doing, it just made things more efficient having me there, as I would cut down their lead time on jobs as they'd have everything ready beforehand, whereas without the lackey they've got to fetch everything themselves.

 

[Dolph]

So the taxpayer should be funding work which has no real social value or work experience value (stacking a shelf for pound-land) to subsidise private profits?.

The taxpayer shouldnt be subsidising either of them, or at least, no more than it subsidises any other activity. again, for the record, I would much prefer a non conditional benefits system, but the idea doesnt seem very popular with those who dont like the idea of personal responsibility.

 

[MrMoonX]

good, its just a government slave labour scheme.

Forcing someone to give up a career relevant voluntary job to do slave labour in poundland was ever fair

The whole scheme just gave companies an excuse not to employ people, I mean who wouldnt, when the government would force them to work for you for free. Forcing someone earning £71 a week to do 30 hours work is just as bad as workers pay in China, at least pay them national minimum wage, stupid politicians!