Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

wannabedamned said:
Not really, as with most of these types of job schemes you are essentially surplus to requirement. You're there for the scheme and your own benefit.

Similar to when you're placed for work experience in school\college\uni. If you werent doing the job, an employee would.
Click to expand...

Have I missed something? That just doesn't make sense..

"as with most of these types of job schemes you are essentially surplus to requirement." If you're saying they are surplus to requirement, how on earth can that be a worthwhile endeavor? What you're saying is that they are basically just in the way. How on earth can you learn anything or benefit from that situation?

Then in the next sentence you're saying they are doing something that an employee would be doing?? If that's the case pay them what you'd pay an employee. If they are doing something an employee should be doing there should be a training element to go with it. As a minimum a few NVQ's at the end of it or better.

I don't see anything wrong with getting people "up and out" and learning new stuff if it helps broaden their experience. Using the Poundland example, I'm sure if someone wanted some retail experience that would be ideal (so long as it was for a few hours a week, not 30. If you work you should be paid for the hours you're working, end of story) Sticking someone with a degree in a shop filling selves is just a pointless exercise. She was happily giving her time freely to the museum and doing something worthwhile with her education. It's political semantics, it makes no difference what so ever to the £70 a week she was getting, whether she was working in a museum or Poundland. She was still doing something and not just sitting at home.

Plus I have to agree how can the Workfare scheme not be REMOVING jobs from the market instead of creating them? Government pays employer to take on Workfare "helpers" that they don't pay. How long before the real employee is back in the shop under the scheme doing the same job for nothing??
 
Last edited:
DampDog said:
I don't see anything wrong with getting people "up and out" and learning new stuff if it helps broaden their experience. Using the Poundland example, I'm sure if someone wanted some retail experience that would be ideal (so long as it was for a few hours a week, not 30) Sticking someone with a degree in a shop filling selves is just a pointless exercise. She was happily giving her time freely to the museum and doing something worthwhile with her education. It's political semantics, if makes no difference what so ever to the £70 a week she was getting, whether she was working in a museum or Poundland. She was still doing something and not just sitting at home.
Click to expand...

Or at worst they could make her do the number of hours it would require to "earn" her dole at minimum wage. That would be fair imo, if she kept her voluntary stuff.
 
Skillmister said:
Or at worst they could make her do the number of hours it would require to "earn" her dole at minimum wage. That would be fair imo, if she kept her voluntary stuff.
Click to expand...

This entire thing links in with unpaid internships when it comes to young people. I don't know the specifics of the museum, but are they a registered charity? Is the work she is doing there, actually work which the museum requires and would have to pay for otherwise.

The museum is probably a registered charity though and so I don't really have many qualms about that.
 
Skillmister said:
Or at worst they could make her do the number of hours it would require to "earn" her dole at minimum wage. That would be fair imo, if she kept her voluntary stuff.
Click to expand...

Yup that makes sense to me, I'd go with that. But it's way too sensible, someone let it slip this morning in an interview. It's about giving the unemployed "A short sharp shock" not about giving them skills, experience or something to put on their CV at all.
 
Aye IDS had lost it just read this from the torygraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9875695/Iain-Duncan-Smith-wont-back-down-on-back-to-work.html

For someone in goverment who has been placed in charge of pensions and work he is retarded.

Still does not realise is it not about being above any job it is about getting paid the minimum wage for each hour of work.I thought going to work was about getting money in your pocket? How does working for £2 per hour teach anyone anything about employment? Maybe if they got a decent bit of cash to take home and enjoy a night out they might think hey you know i actually prefer having some money in my pocket opposed to being hounded every week by the jobcenter.

It took me about 5 minutes in the bath to think of a better scheme.If you have been on JSA for a year and have been having a hard time getting taken seriously then you could be added to a roster which would be sent out to local charities and business which would offer them for say 20 hours per week.

They could keep thier JSA and have the goverment and the business meet half way on topping it up so they would have min wage for those 20 hours.If the company choose not to keep them in employment then they simply go back to the roster and on to JSA again.

Any company using this service though should be monitored very close as to how many people they take on from workfare and how many get jobs.If you take on say 20 people and offer two a job and keep asking for more then i think you should be blacklisted from the scheme for abusing it as a means of cheap shelf stackers.


It would still take away jobs though i reckon.There is no perfect system if you are going to force people into workfare.
 
Also how come this person has not been forced on to workfare or even better deported?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...efits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html#comments


JSA = Jihad allowance LOL

The father-of-four takes home more than £25,000 a year in benefits and lives in a £320,000 house in Leytonstone, East London.Meanwhile british youth are herded to poundland for £2 per hour and take home around £4000 per year on JSA
 
Rofflay said:
Also how come this person has not been forced on to workfare or even better deported?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...efits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html#comments


JSA = Jihad allowance LOL

The father-of-four takes home more than £25,000 a year in benefits and lives in a £320,000 house in Leytonstone, East London.Meanwhile british youth are herded to poundland for £2 per hour and take home around £4000 per year on JSA
Click to expand...

Ignoring the person involved.

£15,600 of that is housing benefit which he never sees. So he gets £9,000 and lives in a £320,000 home, or he gets £25000+ in benefits. It's one or the other.

edit: Should also note that this isn't just to pay for himself but 5(?) others.
 
Last edited:
Rofflay said:
It took me about 5 minutes in the bath to think of a better scheme.If you have been on JSA for a year and have been having a hard time getting taken seriously then you could be added to a roster which would be sent out to local charities and business which would offer them for say 20 hours per week.

They could keep thier JSA and have the goverment and the business meet half way on topping it up so they would have min wage for those 20 hours.If the company choose not to keep them in employment then they simply go back to the roster and on to JSA again.
Click to expand...
Is the flaw in your plan not that businesses need to have vacancies for people, even at minimum wage?
 
muon said:
Ignoring the person involved.

£15,600 of that is housing benefit which he never sees. So he gets £9,000 and lives in a £320,000 home, or he gets £25000+ in benefits. It's one or the other.

edit: Should also note that this isn't just to pay for himself but 5(?) others.
Click to expand...

Ignoring housing benefit is massively flawed. Most working households couldn't afford to spend 15.5k on housing, this highlights the continued flaw of allowing anyone on benefits a lifestyle they could not afford by working in an average job.
 
Dolph said:
Ignoring housing benefit is massively flawed. Most working households couldn't afford to spend 15.5k on housing, this highlights the continued flaw of allowing anyone on benefits a lifestyle they could not afford by working in an average job.
Click to expand...

I didn't say ignore it. I said it's either £9k plus a £320k house

or

£25k in benefits.

Not £25k in benefits + a £320k house.

As for this being too much in welfare for a husband and wife + 4 children where no one is employed, that's a different thread.
 
muon said:
I didn't say ignore it. I said it's either £9k plus a £320k house

or

£25k in benefits.

Not £25k in benefits + a £320k house.

As for this being too much in welfare for a husband and wife + 4 children where no one is employed, that's a different thread.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, was just ensuring it is clear.

However, I disagree it is a different thread. part of the need for the negative conditionality around benefits is that the system is flawed from the start. a system that ensured you could not be better off without working removes the entire need for workfare and all other negative conditionality in the system as the system naturally encourages work and encourages personal responsibility.
 
Dolph said:
Fair enough, was just ensuring it is clear.

However, I disagree it is a different thread. part of the need for the negative conditionality around benefits is that the system is flawed from the start. a system that ensured you could not be better off without working removes the entire need for workfare and all other negative conditionality in the system as the system naturally encourages work and encourages personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Any kind of progressive benefit scheme reduces the incentive to work. NIT isn't that different to what we have now except it is simpler with less targeting.

EITC is still better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

Housing benefit is tricky as unless you remove it, it detrimentally affects all tax/benefit schemes in a similar way.
 
muon said:
Any kind of progressive benefit scheme reduces the incentive to work. NIT isn't that different to what we have now except it is simpler with less targeting.

EITC is still better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

Housing benefit is tricky as unless you remove it, it detrimentally affects all tax/benefit schemes in a similar way.
Click to expand...

EITC has much higher administrarive overheads than a general NIT system, and yes, I would propose removing almost all discretionary benefits in favour of universal benefits clawed back by an NIT system. Housing benefit is one of the reasons cost of living is so high in this country. childcare tax credit is a principle reason why childcare is so expensive and so on, you need to break this cycle by stopping subsidising these services so much so that the market flattens out.
 
I've noticed a few statements recently (some in this thread), claiming that minimum wage should be abolished.

I'm interested in why people think this would be a good thing... For one, how many people currently earning NMW would be instantly dismissed, or have to take pay cuts to remain in their jobs?

How do we know there would be a net increase in people in employment? And what about the social cost? I imagine there would be a lot of people suddenly unable to pay their rent, etc.

So what compelling case is there for scrapping NMW?
 
Dolph said:
EITC has much higher administrarive overheads than a general NIT system, and yes, I would propose removing almost all discretionary benefits in favour of universal benefits clawed back by an NIT system. Housing benefit is one of the reasons cost of living is so high in this country. childcare tax credit is a principle reason why childcare is so expensive and so on, you need to break this cycle by stopping subsidising these services so much so that the market flattens out.
Click to expand...

HB isnt the reason why cost of living id high, There has always been HB, the transition from state housing to private housing is the reason why rents are higher. If you look at rents for the last 60 years you'll see a sudden jump in the early 80s around the time of the council home sell off.
 
FoxEye said:
I've noticed a few statements recently (some in this thread), claiming that minimum wage should be abolished.

I'm interested in why people think this would be a good thing... For one, how many people currently earning NMW would be instantly dismissed, or have to take pay cuts to remain in their jobs?

How do we know there would be a net increase in people in employment? And what about the social cost? I imagine there would be a lot of people suddenly unable to pay their rent, etc.

So what compelling case is there for scrapping NMW?
Click to expand...

I don't support the scrapping of the minimum wage on its own, but as part of a wider reform of benefits, tax and employment regulations which would remove much of the thinking behind the minimum wage as it currentlt exists. without those associated changes, I wouldn't support the abolition of the nmw.

However, I would like to see a greater understanding or acknowlegement that the nmw has consequences, which often seems to be missing when people defend it while moaning about low skilled and youth unemployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom