Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

yes because everyone would enjoy to drop wages back to 1990 levels or lower just because they can and there would be people willing (or being forced to) work for £2 an hour.

i dont know your position dolph but im sure you wouldnt be saying the same things if your job was one that could be dropped to such levels.
 
Mr Jack said:
The Sarah Ditum writing in the Grauniad nails it: The Poundland principle: the only thing to gain from unskilled labour is a wage - there really is no value in this kind of work for the majority of job seekers.
Click to expand...

My opinion is the value from this for jobseekers is the fact that it gets people out the house and doing _something_ which for a lot of people who are long term unemployed often becomes harder and harder to motivate yourself to do. You don't need to be working 30 hours a week or even close to get this kind of benefit, even a couple of days of 3-4 hours is more than enough.

I think the speed of response and outrage from certain politicians is self evident that theres some self benefit to this, nothing else gets that kind of response - someones not getting their backhand somewhere.
 
Rroff said:
My opinion is the value from this for jobseekers is the fact that it gets people out the house and doing _something_ which for a lot of people who are long term unemployed often becomes harder and harder to motivate yourself to do. You don't need to be working 30 hours a week or even close to get this kind of benefit, even a couple of days of 3-4 hours is more than enough.

I think the speed of response and outrage from certain politicians is self evident that theres some self benefit to this, nothing else gets that kind of response - someones not getting their backhand somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Poundland etc wouldn't sign up to a scheme for free workers for 3-4hrs a week as they'd still have to employ someone to do the job on minimum wage and it wouldn't be worth the hassle.
 
Rroff said:
My opinion is the value from this for jobseekers is the fact that it gets people out the house and doing _something_ which for a lot of people who are long term unemployed often becomes harder and harder to motivate yourself to do. You don't need to be working 30 hours a week or even close to get this kind of benefit, even a couple of days of 3-4 hours is more than enough.

I think the speed of response and outrage from certain politicians is self evident that theres some self benefit to this, nothing else gets that kind of response - someones not getting their backhand somewhere.
Click to expand...


I would guess the reason its hard to motivate yourself is probably due to the fact that most bosses treat thier workers like ****.More so the min wage folks who can end up with a boss who is very critical when they are basically working away for nothing.

I had to step away from the workplace 4 times after about a year each time due to boss's like that.I left school early to work and got nothing but pure abuse from two bosses who were at odds and had equal ownership rights.Do one thing for one boss and suffer hell from the other for obeying him.Verbal abuse you name it ive experienced it.I was given a real *******ing one day for writing on a leaflet of which we had something like 700 spare.I simply used it to take note of the delivery stock and to keep a record.The ponce blew his top over it for some reason and told me not to come back.


It got to the point where i was a danger to others if i was spoken to out of turn.I had a loan as well on my first set of wheels back then as well and i had to quit and default on it.Not a nice experience age 16.

I can count the amount of bosses who dont deserve to have thier heads caved in after work in the carpark on one hand.Infact i can count them on one finger...
 
Last edited:
Sudden said:
But what about cases where new jobs have been created due to the companies being able to pay less? If the choice is between someone being unemployed and the government supporting them completely, and between some one who is employed but still needs support, surly the latter is better?
Click to expand...

It's probably not as clear cut as that. The two guys earning below NMW are probably both tax exempt and receiving the full amount of other benefits.

The single guy earning NMW or above isn't tax exempt, so is contributing something, and probably has to pay a small amount of council tax, etc.

And frankly, if a job pays 2x JSA for 30 hours work a week, when JSA leaves those 30 hours mostly free, is it really worth taking the job? That would be a job paying roughly £5.90/hr, by my calculations. And you can bet there would be even lower paid jobs than this...
 
Last edited:
i liked the part where he keeps saying its not paid and then says it is. he just keeps going around and around until he finds the right combination of bull.
 
Just for those who don't know, IDS has officially gone mad.


Under the regulations, welfare to work companies, or the DWP, can mandate someone to up to two year’s full time unpaid work. As was announced last December, on International Disabled People’s Day, even claimants on sickness or disability benefits can now be mandated to forced labour.

These are all claimants who have been signed off as unfit for work by their own GP. Many more claimants, who have also been signed off work as sick by doctors, have had that decision over-ruled by the DWP and are now on mainstream unemployment benefits. With such a rushed and no doubt bodged set of regulations, there doesn’t even appear to be anything stopping the Secretary of State singling out claimants he doesn’t like and condemning them to hard labour.

With jobs in desperately short supply, especially for those with a health condition or disability, the choice facing unwell claimants sentenced to unpaid work will be whether to be worked to death or starved to death.

Of course someone with a life threatening condition may appeal against a decision which forces them to carry out unpaid physical work at a Sue Ryder charity shop or The Conservation Volunteer’s latest chain gang.

But sadly many people don’t appeal – and legal support for appealing benefit decisions is being slashed. And it is a truly chilling thought that the only thing protecting sick or disabled claimants from being sent to do work which may kill them is the whims of a DWP tribunal.

Iain Duncan Smith may not have introduced these laws as a way of working to death disabled activists, or anyone else on health related benefits who opposes his vicious and inept schemes. But the power is now there to do so.

None of this has ever been adequately discussed by Parliament. Even the Courts seem to be beneath the Secretary of State – today Iain Duncan Smith dismissed the judgement of three High Court judges on a very technical point of law as ‘rubbish’. Not even David Cameron seems to be able to control the power-drunk fool, whilst the Treasury willingly hands over billions of pounds to fund his whatever crazy old ******** he cooks up next. It is clear that Iain Duncan Smith regards himself as above the Prime Minister, above Parliament and above the very law itself.

Iain Duncan Smith is out of control and has the power to destroy millions of lives. And that is exactly what the Secretary of State is doing. If Parliament or the courts can’t put an end to the carnage, then it is down to everyone else with a shred of humanity to stop this vile monster.


http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/iain-duncan-smiths-licence-to-kill/
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
It's good to see an interviewer challenge him for once, most interviews I've seen of him lately he just spouts government propaganda and the interviewerslet him get away with blatent lies.
Click to expand...

I thought the interviewer was a snide tool. IDS utterly embarrassed himself with his gibbering though.

I bet that guy will never get an interview with IDS again because they don't like being challenged.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. John Humphries and Paxman carry on getting interviews.
 
true the interviewer could have been better, but ids showed his lack of knowledge or his complete single mindedness to implement what he see's as right and to hell with anyone else's point's.
 
FoxEye said:
I'm not supporting IDS here, but he certainly wasn't losing the debate. The interviewer was terrible.
Click to expand...

He repeatedly directly contradicted himself, and reality. He ranted that they "earned" their benefits and then claimed there was no work-for-welfare scheme and either deliberately or clueless ignored the reality of the many forced onto these schemes by claiming they volunteered. To be honest I got too annoyed at his two faced incompetence to listen to the end.
 
Presenter: "...you think that they think that shelf stacking is beneath them."
IDS: "That's a ridiculous point to make because I didn't say that."

Quote from IDS earlier this week:

"Most young people love this programme and I am sorry but there are a group of people out there who think they are too good for this kind of stuff."
Click to expand...

Just your typical IDS interview except for once an interviewer wasn't scared to pull him up on his blatent lies and deceptions, anyone who thinks that was a poor interview must be against debate because 99% of IDS interviews recently he is just allowed to give his spin without being challenged, usually because the interviewer know little or nothing about the programme.
 
k I listened to the interview, the last 4 minutes were terrible as the interviewe was putting words into IDS's mouth.

1 thing though that he really should have bought up and challenged him on is the "Mandatory" business. IDS said in this interview it's voluntary "work experience", except that it sort of isn't, we are told it's mandatory and if we don't do it we lose our benefit. Someone needs to put this to IDS so we can hear his explanation on why this was happening, why were we being lied to.
 
1 thing though that he really should have bought up and challenged him on is the "Mandatory" business. IDS said in this interview it's voluntary "work experience", except that it sort of isn't, we are told it's mandatory and if we don't do it we lose our benefit. Someone needs to put this to IDS so we can hear his explanation on why this was happening, why were we being lied to.


Yep, agree with this, IDS is a liar, the DWP's statement claiming workfare, working for benefit doesn't exist is a transparent lie. This deception must be challenged and IDS, DWP must be held accountable.
 
Millions being made from forcing sick and disabled to work unpaid.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/author/johnnyvoid/

An astonishing statement has been produced by so called charity Sue Ryder in which they boast of making millions from forced, unpaid work.

Despite most ethical charities distancing themselves from workfare, Sue Ryder claim that they earn a whopping half a million pounds a week (pdf) from people forced to work in their shops for meagre benefits.

It also appears that Sue Ryder have no qualms about forcing sick and disabled claimants to work for nothing, saying: “To honour our duty of care to Sue Ryder staff and volunteers we ensure people living with conditions that impact on their physical and mental abilities can safely and competently take on roles. We do this by talking honestly about a person’s capabilities and ensuring skills match roles.”

Last year the Government announced that many people on the sickness or disability benefit Employment Support Allowance can now be forced to work unpaid or face being plunged into immediate poverty and possible homelessness by benefit sanctions. Under the regulations, unpaid placements could last as long as two years.

Up until now it had seemed that no organisation was unpleasant enough to take up the Government’s vile offer of free workers on sickness benefits. Even the mass workfare using The Conservation Volunteers (@tcvtweets) amended their workfare policies and pleaded they would not use sick or disabled claimants as forced labour – unless of course they had been fount ‘fit for work’ by Atos, in which case off to the fields with them.

Sue Ryder also participated in the (currently missing, possibly dead) Community Action Programme, under which claimants are sentenced to 720 hours of unpaid work just for the crime of being unable to find a job. As pointed out by Boycott Workfare, this is over twice the highest possible Community Service punishment that can be handed out by the Courts.

Despite Sue Ryder’s claims that their forced workers can leave any time they choose, the reality is that should they do so they will have benefits stopped, possibly for up to three years.

It seems that Sue Ryder are keen to establish themselves as one of the least ethical charities in the UK – an interesting branding strategy, particularly as Marie Curie Cancer Care, who carry out similar work, were one of the first major charities to pull out of workfare.

The only justification Sue Ryder offer for this mass exploitation is that it helps make them lots of money, a significant chunk of which no doubt goes to their highly paid executives.

Yet Scope, MIND, Shelter, Oxfam, Marie Curie, Sense, Age UK, Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation and countless other charities which depend on income from shops have all made statements claiming they will no longer use people forced to work for free.

If all these charities can live without forced labour then so can Sue Ryder, They will only have themselves to blame when customers and donors abandon them in disgust at their boasts of gross exploitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom