Yup
Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling
- Thread starter CosmicClown
- Start date
Yup
TBH, I think the scheme should be voluntary... That will sort the wheat from the chaff.
The idea that the government should just pay people to lay about and not expect a little something in return, which at the end of the day only benefits the individual just seems stupid to me.
I worked on the markets every Saturday and during school holidays for £15.00 a day (10-11 hours days.) when I was 15 but I didn't do it for the money. I did it because I knew when I left school I would have good references for future employers, whereas my school mates who sat at home smoking weed wouldn't.
My staff are fully trained by me, they can borrow money if needed from me, (Within reason),they got 2.5 weeks off at christmas and if the job is done that I ask of them by 3pm and there's nothing more to do they can go home for the day.
I think they are set, and by the way I haven't made anyone redundant EVER, and all my staff have 5years + service. If they want commitment from me they have to show they can deal with adversity straight in the face and just get on with it without whining like cry babies over something as daft as 2 weeks of their life which may or may not improve their chances of bettering themselves.
Last edited:
6 months isn't 2 weeks.
Why are you paying people when you could get people who you claim are ideal employees for free? You know, the people who "deal with adversity straight in the face" rather than "whining like cry babies", i.e. the people who are used as forced labour so that uncaring employers can avoid having to pay people to work for them. You're wasting money, apparently. Why?
The work placements are for a few weeks only, I really don't see the problem. My work needs training which I provide and it takes a few months to become proficient so when I employ new staff I'm looking at a long term commitment.
Same as most smes....
The problem I have with it is that the state should not be providing private companies with unpaid dogs bodies while they are raking in the profits. I would have much less of a problem with a scheme that involved people improving their local community and working the hours that would be equivalent to earning minimum wage.
TBH I may (or may not) have got you confused with someone else with my earlier comment - I thought I'd seen you posting on a related topic awhile back some stuff about treating your employees in a way thats quite different to the rest of that post.
I don't think anyone should get a free ride on benefits but I find it abhorrent that most of these schemes seem to be more about massaging statistics and potentially lining the pocket of private companies than it is about helping people actually find work, while pretending they are helping people find work. I'm all for schemes were people actually have a chance of furthering themselves even if not exactly how they expected atleast in something a bit relevant to them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
⇑ There is a growing number of workfare schemes
Each of these threaten people with welfare sanctions if they do not take part. Workfare does not only affect young people- it is aimed at people of all ages and from next year people with terminal cancer may be forced to work unpaid.
◦Mandatory Work Activity – The scheme mandates four weeks’ unpaid work for up to 30 hours a week. Although the government claims it is “community work”, its definition of this includes working “for the profit of the host organisation.”
◦The Work Programme – Figures are not available for the number of mandatory work placements under this programme, but 370,000 people were referred to the Work Programme between June and November 2011. Ingeus (owned by city financiers Deloitte) force people to do six month long workfare placements. The Work Programme, is expected to cost the taxpayer £5 billion pounds.
◦Community Action Programme – jobseekers are referred for up to 30 hours unpaid work per week for six months.
◦Sector-based work academies – Placements can last up to six weeks
◦Work Experience – Work placement for two to eight weeks, working 25 to 30 hours each week. Following developments on 1st March 2012, the government has yet to make clear which of the sanctions for this scheme remain in place, but the CAB continues to advise claimants that this is a compulsory scheme.
◦Steps to Work – A mandatory scheme in Northern Ireland, which includes work experience.
◦Day One Support for Young People Trailblazer – announced in August 2012, this scheme will compel young people to work without pay for 13 weeks.
◦Derbyshire “Trailblazer” Mandatory Youth Activity Programme – “The provision is designed to help Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claimants age 18 -24 year old who have reached 26 weeks unemployment move in to sustainable employment. It will deliver a period of 8 weeks mandatory work experience through a variety of placements that are of benefit to the community.”
visit the boycott workfare website for the facts..
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/
Last edited:
I'd agree that I don't see how someone would not take the opportunity for a couple of weeks training or experience, but I don't think that is how the scheme is intended to operate.
I can't say I really know enough about it but I did come across this site that highlighted a number of things I did not know about the scheme and it's implementation.
http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=231
"Press attention has focused on the sector-based work academy, but that is only one of a plethora of complex schemes, many of which are much worse. The sector-based work academy involves 6-8 weeks of unpaid work. Other schemes involve six months, and there appears to be nothing to stop those six-month periods from being renewed. One of our clients was told that his Community Action Programme placement would last six months “to begin with”.
Personally I don't agree with the system as it stands. It strikes me more as a method of intimidating and punishing the work-shy at the expense of anyone who happens to be unlucky enough to be in a position where the rules can be applied to them.
The government has somehow convinced itself that JSA is a wage, and is doing it's best to convince the general puplic likewise.
"Jobseekers allowance ranges from £53.45 to £67.50 per week. It is paid for one specific (and obvious) purpose – to support people whilst they seek employment. It is not remuneration for work, and even if it were it would mean that people on Back to Work schemes would be getting paid as little as £1.78 per hour, often whilst working for some of our biggest retailers. Many of those retailers are now realising that such a scenario is unacceptable and have either pulled out of the schemes or demanded that the Government thinks again."
In my view the scheme as it stands is destructive, forcing graduates or anyone who has aspirations to do anything constructive with their would-be working life into stacking shelves or similar is only going to breed contempt and resentment. It simply serves no purpose other than fiddling the figures. There may well be people who are eager for retail experience, if they want to volunteer let them. But that's the nub of it, it should be voluntary. Not a scheme that strokes the social conscience of the government for every pound they have torn from their hand and is spent on the benefit budget.
Last edited:
None of this rant has anything much to do with what I've said.
If there is a job or a position, that it should attract a real wage. The firms making use of these schemes either have the work, or they don't. Even temporary contracts would be of more value.
They are for up to 6 months and they can be imposed repeatedly.
In other words, there is no time limit. Your claim that they are for a few weeks only is wrong.
The problem is that the system is a very expensive way to subsidise businesses. Very expensive in human terms and very expensive in financial terms.
1) It's wasteful because of the amount of administration and the layers of businesses taking a profit from it.
2) It reduces the amount of paid work available by providing businesses with forced workers they don't need to pay. Obviously, businesses willing to use forced workers will do so instead of paid workers, not in addition to them.
3) It reduces the working conditions of many people because it reduces the minimum conditions. So people can be, and are, placed on part-time contracts to work on demand and to hell with caring how much stress it causes them to never know from one week to the next whether they will be able to eat and pay essential bills or that they have to work 52 weeks a year because they can't afford to go on holiday for part-time pay. If they don't like it, they can be replaced by forced workers. The same applies to any other aspects of working conditions, of course.
It would be better for the country if the government openly gave public money to selected businesses as a present, or just stole it themselves. I don't mean "creative" expenses claims. I mean outright theft. I'd rather David Cameron took £5 billion out of the treasury and put it in his pocket - that would be much less damaging to the economy and to the country.
They're probably just laying the foundations for when unemployment is 25%+ and most of the supportive OCUK members will get to take part, there simply aren't enough jobs and it's only going to get worse but if the government admit that they're as good as saying they've failed with their austerity plan and that Labour were right about investment, so they'll just carry on spouting nonsense about free corporate labour being experience and jobseekers allowance being a suitable wage.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
Cheers though, thought was there..
Would you do me a favour and delete your quote of my post.(#713) I've had enough of this thread. Thank you.
Last edited:
I hope you are treated well but off the back of kicking the poorest in society this current government is just putting everyone who can't work, even if its for a slave wage labour that isn't even a living wage in some parts of the country, in the same pile and able to treat them like scum. Good luck, go out blazing if you have to, I know if I was forced to work for nothing I would be stealing from the employer like mad to make them regret having me there.
I don't doubt that for 1 second. Hopefully I'll get myself fit enough for a bit of something part time so I don't need anything. But I'm not there yet.
I've also heard some real horror stories about properly I'll people being found fit when a blind man on a galloping horse could see they are not.
Ahh, well happy days
Last edited:
Having read through most of the thread, I might as well weigh in here:
Most of what is posted in this thread is nonsense, misleading or just wrong, and that's just the thread title. Dolph's comments are the ones that really make sense. These placements in reality don't take away any real jobs and are merely created jobs. No one else arguing against that could actually back up their argument with anything.
No ones really picked up on the fact that is court case cost how much? If you read the actual ruling all that really changed is that the Government tweaked the wording on a few regulations and then carry on as normal, no one can actually appeal anything on their claims as what DWP are doing is legal. Support it or not that exercise was a complete waste of time.
Most of what is posted in this thread is nonsense, misleading or just wrong, and that's just the thread title. Dolph's comments are the ones that really make sense. These placements in reality don't take away any real jobs and are merely created jobs. No one else arguing against that could actually back up their argument with anything.
No ones really picked up on the fact that is court case cost how much? If you read the actual ruling all that really changed is that the Government tweaked the wording on a few regulations and then carry on as normal, no one can actually appeal anything on their claims as what DWP are doing is legal. Support it or not that exercise was a complete waste of time.
So most of what is posted is nonsense, misleading or just wrong. A bit like your assertion that these placements are not taking any real jobs when there is plenty of evidence to show that in many cases they are.
It matters not how much the court case costs. That is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the wrong being done. Shall we never challenge anything ... and you say everyone else is posting nonsense. I guess you figured if you can't beat them join them.
Which were posted where? Certainly not within the first 11 pages, the only things that were posted are Chinese whispers. Dolph was the only poster that tried to construct an actual reply based on fact.
Comparing workfare with slavery, I'm not even going to go into that one.
All I was merely pointing out is that there so much mis information in here posted by people that clearly don't know the conditions of job seekers allowance or the workfare schemes.