Why would ASDA have the workscheme people in the first place unless they had roles which needed filling? They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Because the economics are different? (and we are assuming no social conscience at work).
I went over it earlier in the thread, but to cover it again:
employee in minimum wage costs the company
minimum wage + employers ni + training + misc (such as management and admin costs)
in numbers (and rounded up/guesstimated) this would look something like:
7+1+1+1, so in this example, employing someone costs £10 per hour. in order to make this workable, that employee needs to add at least £10 of value to the business for each hour they work.
the same for a work placement indvidual misses out thr bulk of those costs, as min wage and employers ni is not applicable, so the value they need to add is dramatically reduced to make them worth having. an activity that generates £5 per hour is worth having done by someone on a work placement, but not worth employing someone for.
If it's economically viable to have workscheme people filling those roles but not viable to employ people, well, that seems like bloody good news for the private companies. Not such good news for the people being exploited though.
Well, that depends whether the placement individual gains any additonal transferable skills or insight, but I don't actually disagree with you. although I do defend the current scheme from misconceptions, lies and so on, I don't actually support it. it is required because our benefit system is fundamentally broken and needs substantial overhaul to ensure structural motivations and fairness.
