Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

Assassin_012 · 13 Feb 2013 at 01:34

hmmm...nice

Angilion · 13 Feb 2013 at 02:05

AndrewNR said:
£71 a week? Someone working in a factory will actually work 35 hours a week and only get 3 times more (and taxed). No wonder the young brits can't be arsed to work and leave it for the "foreigners".

The difference between £200 and £71 is hardly worth the effort.

The difference is much less because JSA isn't the only benefit. Council tax benefit, housing benefit, etc.

Minimum wage is judged as the minimum needed to live on.

Benefits are judged as the minimum needed to live on.

The former isn't 3 times the latter. The two are far, far closer than that.

But that's no reason to be using public money to pay businesses to put more people out of work, thus increasing the number of people claiming benefits. That's a very bad approach to the issue even if the issue of forced labour is ignored.

Biohazard · 13 Feb 2013 at 02:49

Omnishambles.

ThePirateHulk · 13 Feb 2013 at 04:38

Dolph said:
That I'm realistic rather than idealistic?

Don't make me laugh. Your whole ethos is built around right-wing idealism.

ThePirateHulk · 13 Feb 2013 at 05:23

DampDog said:
+1
This scheme has nothing to do with getting people back into work, it's about moving them from one list to another.

And making corporate shareholders and managers a nice tidy profit into the bargain. The welfare of those thrown into the scheme is the last thing on the governments mind.

I wonder how many of the companies that have taken advantage of the Workfare scheme are run by Tory donors.

Nevakonaza · 13 Feb 2013 at 05:44

It was a silly system imo,What company are going to take on permanent people if our silly government are forcing people to work for them costing the company nothing?..company's are laughing for the free labour.

While i agree there are some people out there that could work but choose not too,I don't think this scheme was very well thought out.

CREATIVE!11 · 13 Feb 2013 at 06:11

Good ingeus and all other work schemes make me sick...

Edit: Far as working part time for JSA,

I'm all for that, in fact I considered a part time job to "earn" my jsa myself cause I hate the job center.

Sudden · 13 Feb 2013 at 06:52

Nevakonaza said:
It was a silly system imo,What company are going to take on permanent people if our silly government are forcing people to work for them costing the company nothing?..company's are laughing for the free labour.

While i agree there are some people out there that could work but choose not too,I don't think this scheme was very well thought out.

But what about the companies who can't afford the permanent people? If they had to choose between paying someone and just not hiring someone, they might well choose just to not have a position for that role and pay an existing employee a little bit more to do it. If that happens, there's a higher chance of people having no experience on the cv rather than at least having something to show the next employer that they weren't just sitting around the house.

There will obviously be companies that are taking advantage of it, but why assume that they all are?

Freakbro · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:00

Sudden said:
There will obviously be companies that are taking advantage of it, but why assume that they all are?

Just in the same way everyone who receives any benefit of any kind is a workshy, f.eckless scumbag who doesn't deserve to breed (or watch TV) then every company is an evil exploiter of the masses only interested in subjugating the populous for its own nefarious profit making tax dodging schemes.

That's 100% true, with no sweeping generalisations at all *nods*

oldbag · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:10

The only people it benefits are employers who get free labour.

Pigeon · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:14

I think the pound land getting free labour and able to throw it back is the bad part of all this. It is a noble idea to try to get people used to what work is but it is a fine line between this and exploitation. There was a scheme when I claimed where you could agree with a company to go and do 2-3 days work at a company for free but only if there was a job advertised and available to potentially start at the end.

The girl with the degree is obviously clever and knows what she wants to do but the benefits system is simply a numbers on numbers off and how long have people been on for. If you have been looking for work for 6 months maybe she needed help in getting a job that is actually there available. It's like me saying I used to work and want to work for example as a BBC micro programmer but obviously there are no jobs for this locally or even any more!

You generalise too much. Many claimants of JSA are highly skilled and motivated people who simply cannot find a job.

I agree with this but where a job in you chosen field has not come up then you have to think about other things. The job enter unfortunately has to cater for a huge range of people and it is the people who are less able to sort themselves out who will find the help suits them.

If you are an expert programmer etc where there are few people doing the job and then you can't expect people at the job centre to know everything about everything. You have to be able to manage your own search/training etc it goes with the qualified, clever and motivated part but you have to get some results or try to get a temporary fix to get of benefits ASAP for your own and your own sake revenue if it means working in pound land!

Bear · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:16

A more fair and sensible way of doing it would have been the claimaint getting their benefit via the 11.5 hours worked and the employer topping up the extra 18.5+ hours with minimum wage. That way the claimant would get a proper wage for work done and the company wins by reduced labour costs for taking a chance on someone and having to potentialy take time training/supervising them.

oldbag · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:18

Bear said:
A more fair and sensible way of doing it would have been the claimaint getting their benefit via the 11.5 hours worked and the employer topping up the extra 18.5+ hours with minimum wage. That way the claimant would get a proper wage for work done and the company wins by reduced labour costs for taking a chance on someone and having to potentialy take time training/supervising them.

Completely agree.

Freakbro · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:36

Bear said:
A more fair and sensible way of doing it would have been the claimaint getting their benefit via the 11.5 hours worked and the employer topping up the extra 18.5+ hours with minimum wage. That way the claimant would get a proper wage for work done and the company wins by reduced labour costs for taking a chance on someone and having to potentialy take time training/supervising them.

And there we have a simple sensible solution.

CREATIVE!11 · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:38

Bear said:
A more fair and sensible way of doing it would have been the claimaint getting their benefit via the 11.5 hours worked and the employer topping up the extra 18.5+ hours with minimum wage. That way the claimant would get a proper wage for work done and the company wins by reduced labour costs for taking a chance on someone and having to potentialy take time training/supervising them.

Yep

but companies knew when they were getting into this why they were doing it. Free labour all it comes down too really nothing more.

TheLegendOfMart · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:55

Bear said:
A more fair and sensible way of doing it would have been the claimaint getting their benefit via the 11.5 hours worked and the employer topping up the extra 18.5+ hours with minimum wage. That way the claimant would get a proper wage for work done and the company wins by reduced labour costs for taking a chance on someone and having to potentialy take time training/supervising them.

Won't happen, JSA is for Job Seekers, if you earn ANY money via part time wage they offset your JSA to cover it. So if you work the extra 18.5 hours they wont give you £71 and you end up with £110~ you actually earn, not sure if it affects housing benefit or not.

spankingtexan · 13 Feb 2013 at 08:36

The government have acted unlawfully here, they can't and should not get off scott free, they must be held accountable for their actions, starting with Ian Drunken Smiths arrest, yes, Police investigation and charges to follow is the order of the day.

elmarko · 13 Feb 2013 at 08:37

Bear said:
A more fair and sensible way of doing it would have been the claimaint getting their benefit via the 11.5 hours worked and the employer topping up the extra 18.5+ hours with minimum wage. That way the claimant would get a proper wage for work done and the company wins by reduced labour costs for taking a chance on someone and having to potentialy take time training/supervising them.

Indeed it would be preferable, but I'd still have an issue with giving certain private corporations reduced labour & not others - it essentially gives them a market advantage (if it didn't, they wouldn't do it).

Sudden · 13 Feb 2013 at 08:51

Freakbro said:
Just in the same way everyone who receives any benefit of any kind is a workshy, f.eckless scumbag who doesn't deserve to breed (or watch TV) then every company is an evil exploiter of the masses only interested in subjugating the populous for its own nefarious profit making tax dodging schemes.

That's 100% true, with no sweeping generalisations at all *nods*

Deleted member 66701 · 13 Feb 2013 at 09:01

elmarko1234 said:
Indeed it would be preferable, but I'd still have an issue with giving certain private corporations reduced labour & not others - it essentially gives them a market advantage (if it didn't, they wouldn't do it).

Agreed.

Then they'd also be the temptation to reduce the number of existing fully paid employees and replace them with subsidised "JSA" workers.

Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

Deleted member 66701

Deleted member 66701