Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

[esoteric]

I think there is no need to argue that the scheme as a whole has benefits, but in the individual case of Cait the Jobcentre is so very wrong.

If they simply give us what we NEED instead of what they WANT I don't think anyone on benefits will have a problem.

 

[Trifid]

I have no problem with those who don't want to take part. all they need to do is stop taking money from the taxpayer and they will instantly be free of all obligations like this...

There should probably also be a disclaimer on that site regarding the highly biased content.

Would you not rather see those on this scheme do something that improves the area they live in rather than the profits of private enterprises? That is my only issue with this scheme. Litter picking in the street/parks/beach while supervised by those currently employed to do this. Hospital/elderly volunteer work. etc. All better uses of their time while 'employed' by the tax payer.

 

[hondo]

I think there is no need to argue that the scheme as a whole has benefits, but in the individual case of Cait the Jobcentre is so very wrong.

If they simply give us what we NEED instead of what they WANT I don't think anyone on benefits will have a problem.

With all respect in a lot of cases what is needed now no longer exists, its a case of taking what is available, rather than what an individual person needs

 

[GAC]

workfare needs one major thing changing with it before anyone goes on it, pay the min wage.

sure if your getting housing benefits and everything else then it could very well be on par with min wage, but if all you get is basic jobseekers at £71.70 a week, if you end up doing 30 hours thats £2.39 an hour.

i dont care if you have worked and paid tax or not, working for £2.39 an hour is insulting to anyone even if its your first job, you should be rewarded for work, not punished for being out of work and made to work for less than the legal limit.

 

[estebanrey]

Would you not rather see those on this scheme do something that improves the area they live in rather than the profits of private enterprises? That is my only issue with this scheme. Litter picking in the street/parks/beach while supervised by those currently employed to do this. Hospital/elderly volunteer work. etc. All better uses of their time while 'employed' by the tax payer.

Two problems with this....

A) People are already employed by the council to litter pick, sacking them to be replaced by JSA claimants only creates more JSA claimants.

B) Doing menial jobs for the council is what people sentenced to community service get. Are we saying being unemployed should be punished the same way as petty crime?

 

[GAC]

Two problems with this....

A) People are already employed by the council to litter pick, sacking them to be replaced by JSA claimants only creates more JSA claimants.

B) Doing menial jobs for the council is what people sentenced to community service get. Are we saying being unemployed should be punished the same way as petty crime?

point A has happened already.

point B is right, but id rather be asked to do something within my community like litter pick cycle ways and footpaths, or help rebuild walls or fences and generally tidy it up than work at poundland stacking shelves.

as long as they didnt have stupid uniforms and mixed the jobseekers in with the community service guys i cant see it being a issue.

BUT it would have to be their local community, not the town council where the jobcenter office is.

 

[Woden]

I have no problem with those who don't want to take part. all they need to do is stop taking money from the taxpayer and they will instantly be free of all obligations like this...

There should probably also be a disclaimer on that site regarding the highly biased content.

You honestly think that unemployed people should be obliged to bolster a companies profits by being forced to work well below minimum wage?

How is that, in any way, shape or form going to lead to gainful employment? There is no qualifications gained, no real experience gained (shelf stacking is not experience. It is no different to filling my tin cupboard), and while your doing that how exactly do you search/apply/interview for a real job?
It's not creating jobs, in-fact it's the exact opposite. Need some unskilled labour? No problem, the government will provide it for next to nothing. Why on earth would you actually hire someone? No matter how much you need that staff, how much profit they will generate, even minimum wage will not compete with free.

Would you not rather see those on this scheme do something that improves the area they live in rather than the profits of private enterprises? That is my only issue with this scheme. Litter picking in the street/parks/beach while supervised by those currently employed to do this. Hospital/elderly volunteer work. etc. All better uses of their time while 'employed' by the tax payer.

They should be put into schemes that help the community, but aren't normally done directly by the council or a company. A good example I saw just this morning was a small village having a team of volunteers fitting broadband (fibre under the ground an all) since neither BT nor VM saw it as profitable enough to do it. It is an obvious bonus to the community, no one is making money off it, and there are genuine skills to be learned.

 

[estebanrey]

Woden did you actually read the post you quoted. If you did, you'd see that your use of the word "forced" is inaccurate.

Also have you seen the website Dolph was referring to? It's an extremist website that goes far beyond having issues with Workfare. They believe that even work experience (like we all did at school) is exploitation too and suggest that everyone should be allowed to refuse to work unless they are paid the "living wage".

 

[esoteric]

I've been reading that boycottworkfare webby posted 1 page back. Some of the stuff is pretty sickening, like this quote from Tesco;

Tescos: “Why would we pay you when we can pick up the phone and get more unemployed people who have to work for free?”

There is a whole page of stories like this. http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=31

Is there any doubt left in peoples mind that the unemployed are used as slave labour on this work programmes. I'm not saying there won't be any genuine companies out there making an honest use of this scheme, but when the vast majority are just exploiting it then there needs to be a massive reform.

 

[Woden]

Woden did you actually read the post you quoted. If you did, you'd see that your use of the word "forced" is inaccurate.

I did thanks, did you?

Dolph is coming across there as the only way out of the scheme (in his implementation of it) is to forfeit your benefits. To me (imho, ymmv, etc) "do this or don't eat or have a place to live" is being forced.

 

[Dolph]

You honestly think that unemployed people should be obliged to bolster a companies profits by being forced to work well below minimum wage?

How is that, in any way, shape or form going to lead to gainful employment? There is no qualifications gained, no real experience gained (shelf stacking is not experience. It is no different to filling my tin cupboard), and while your doing that how exactly do you search/apply/interview for a real job?
It's not creating jobs, in-fact it's the exact opposite. Need some unskilled labour? No problem, the government will provide it for next to nothing. Why on earth would you actually hire someone? No matter how much you need that staff, how much profit they will generate, even minimum wage will not compete with free.



They should be put into schemes that help the community, but aren't normally done directly by the council or a company. A good example I saw just this morning was a small village having a team of volunteers fitting broadband (fibre under the ground an all) since neither BT nor VM saw it as profitable enough to do it. It is an obvious bonus to the community, no one is making money off it, and there are genuine skills to be learned.

May I suggest you read some of my other posts in this thread? challenging lies and misinformation about rhe scheme doesn't mean I support it beyond it being a necessary part of a fundamentally flawed tax and benefit structure.

 

[Dolph]

I did thanks, did you?

Dolph is coming across there as the only way out of the scheme (in his implementation of it) is to forfeit your benefits. To me (imho, ymmv, etc) "do this or don't eat or have a place to live" is being forced.

While we have conditionality in the system, it has to be negative as well as positive to be fair to the taxpayer as well as the recipient. It doesn't follow that I support the conditional benefit that makes obligation a neednin the first place.

 

[esoteric]

ASDA were sending home full time staff without pay as they were getting free employment for the unemployed, http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=31

Dolph, suppose there is someone just as qualified to do your job, and your company took him/her in for free labour and you got sent home without pay.

 

[Dolph]

ASDA were sending home full time staff without pay as they were getting free employment for the unemployed, http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=31

Dolph, suppose there is someone just as qualified to do your job, and your company took him/her in for free labour and you got sent home without pay.

Have you got a valid news source for the claim or just a highly biased pressure site?

If that happened to me, I would be re examining my skill set, but then I am under no illusions about the nature of my relationship with my employer, and certainly dont think I have a right to a job regardless of my value.

 

[Woden]

ASDA were sending home full time staff without pay as they were getting free employment for the unemployed, http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=31

Dolph, suppose there is someone just as qualified to do your job, and your company took him/her in for free labour and you got sent home without pay.

I call shenanigans on that one. They can't just send you home without pay, number of hours will be in their contract. Those hours are payable so long as you show up. If they send you home, you still get paid.

I'm sorry but that site is awful. A lot of stories with no facts to back them up. I am (clearly) against things like workfare, but that site is doing more harm than good.

 

[esoteric]

If you look at the link then you'll see each article are quotations, some of them are from the Guardian.co.uk, the other's are quotes from bloggs, to which the authors have been contacted and permission given for them to be on the boycott site. At the bottom of the page are links to more stories at the Guadian webby.

 

[Trifid]

Two problems with this....

A) People are already employed by the council to litter pick, sacking them to be replaced by JSA claimants only creates more JSA claimants.

B) Doing menial jobs for the council is what people sentenced to community service get. Are we saying being unemployed should be punished the same way as petty crime?

I addressed point A, they can be supervisors of the JSA team.

Point B, Are you saying those currently employed to do this are being punished? Or would you say they have a job? I would rename it to the guaranteed job scheme. 12 hours a week of guaranteed work, spend the rest of the time looking for a full time job.

 

[Dolph]

If you look at the link then you'll see each article are quotations, some of them are from the Guardian.co.uk, the other's are quotes from bloggs, to which the authors have been contacted and permission given for them to be on the boycott site. At the bottom of the page are links to more stories at the Guadian webby.

and if you read the page, you will see they are taken fron the readers comments on the guardian, not from published and verified news stories...

 

[GAC]

knowing asda the staff will be 16 hour contracts so will do 2 days and get the rest of the week off, not exactly fulltime staff, but as my cousin did he was there for 10 years and work 5 day weeks for the majority of it but never got a fulltime contract.

the fact still stands workfare is illegal if you only get basic jsa as its less than min wage.

 

[estebanrey]

I addressed point A, they can be supervisors of the JSA team.

So sack the supervisors that already exist then? All you done is push the problem back one up the hierarchy.

Point B, Are you saying those currently employed to do this are being punished? Or would you say they have a job?[

No because they receive a decent wage for what they do and have all the protections of a contract and union behind them.

I actually work for a local council covering that department so I know how it works inside out. Now there maybe some councils who could do with more staff in that area but where I live we take pride in being one of the cleanest cities and therefore already employ more than enough street cleaners (if anything I'd say we have too many but that's another issue).

I also get to see the community service guys quite often, and that's why I don't like the idea of lumping job seekers in with those guys because no matter if you give them a different coloured outfit and call it something different it will be spun as giving job seekers the same 'punishment' as petty criminals.

Personally, I'd like to see a different system that instead of punishing people for taking over generous benefits by making them do some menial job for a couple weeks, they whole system need to change so that there is more stigma to being on unemployment benefits (yes I do think there should be) and less attractive as an 'option'.