Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Hallelujah
Last edited:
Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling
- Thread starter CosmicClown
- Start date
Hallelujah
From personal experience, if its just the simple matter of being unemployed, you find yourself another job.
I've been sacked (once) walked off jobs (countless times) and been made redundant and each time I've just gone on and found another job to do, in most cases the next day.
Some people can do this - i.e. my brother doors seem to just open for him when it comes to finding work (not to knock the fact he does put in a good effort to) - for other people its not so easy.
to be fair some people useless / stupid / unlucky not everyone who wants a job can jsut walk into one
I know its not the case for everyone, I think some people are just too picky.
When you are in the kind of jobs that I found myself in between 2005 and 2010, crappy 18 to 20k manual/driving/factory/distribution work, you can pretty much just go and get a job that pays that doing anything and get by till something you want to do comes along.
I raised this point earlier on, just because you've driven HGV's for 20 years, doesnt mean you cant do anything other than drive HGV's in the future.
A brilliant example of this is Dimple, he worked in a domestic appliance factory for a gazillion years before being made redundant 4 or 5 years ago know I think it was, he now works in the NHS in some training capacity (I couldnt be sure exactly what he does).
Its something that seems to have got a lot worse of late, also increasingly kids coming out of school seeming to think the accepted thing to do is to turn up to work and do as little as you can get away with, back in the day that was by far the exception rather than the rule, of late its almost the reverse. We've had quite a few over the last couple of years or so that have only pulled their socks up after realising we were actually serious about firing them, in the past I've not experienced it like that.
Because some companies can't afford to have a full time employee and have no intention of getting one for the work that can be done. It is work that would ideally be done, but if not done, does not warrant hiring someone to do it. If they are willing to get someone in for experience, who can do that work and can put it on his CV that he did it, then why should he be stopped?
Some people want to work and are willing to not get paid to get experience. Why should they be stopped from doing that?
Part time staff
They are not stopped from doing that, at all.
They are perfectly free to do it themselves without the threat of losing benefits.Part time staff
They are not stopped from doing that, at all.
Same thing applies for part time as well. I'm talking about tasks that a company would like to be done, but is perfectly fine not having them done. Therefore, not worth paying someone to do it, but if someone does it for free, then good.
With respect to the second point - they are stopped from doing it because people like spankingtexan is going on about pressuring companies into scraping all work that isn't paid. Going by his article alone, Tesco wants it to be voluntary, without the threat of sanctions, and because of that they are 'manipulating' people.
Of all the hordes of people forced into indentured servitude, you pick one person and claim that as a precedence proving that it works. Come on, that's not a reasonable argument.
The official figures show that it's worse than useless for the stated purpose of getting people into work, and that's just counting the people on the schemes. If you count the people who become unemployed because companies are using indentured servants provided by the government instead of employing people (which, obviously, is the whole point of using indentured servants - to reduce staff costs), then it's even worse.
Does anyone really believe that the point of these schemes is to reduce unemployment? Surely nobody who's given it even a moment's consideration would be fooled by such a transparent lie. Or am I giving people too much credit?
If that was the case, then the system would be designed with that in mind. It isn't. That may be one of the excuses used, but it clearly isn't the intended purpose.
You could impose community service on people for being unemployed, but then you have the issue of a much smaller number of hours of community service being a punishment for criminal offences - is being unemployed really so much worse than being a minor criminal?
Regardless of how it's done, if you make them do any useful work then you're reducing the amount of paid employment available. The only honest scheme I can think of is one of useless work, which serves the purpose you advocate without putting other people out of work. That's unlikely to happen, as the participants in the schemes are deeply committed to such an extreme level of deception that they're pretending that the schemes are for the benefit of the people they're forced on!
I'm on £6.75. That's £14K gross for a 40 hour week. 53% of the national average. Which puts me below the official poverty line. I think that can fairly be classed as a low wage. I don't get any of the things you mention, or anything else.
Total benefits can be as high as wages from a full time minimum wage job (unsurprisingly, as the minimum wage is based on the minimum income needed for living), so it is misrepresenting the issue to count only part of benefits and compare that to the whole of the minimum wage (or close to it) and it's not true that people on a low wage get the other benefits as well.
yeah this is bull udders of the highest order. some companies, you mean charities then as the other companies can afford to pay staff.
homebase this week had 21 workfare people in one store ffs, that must be getting on to nearly all the staff they will need.
argos didnt hire anywhere near as many christmas temps but rather used workfare people.
tesco's are the same they are using it as a pool for free labour. as are asda.
funny how all of them arnt exactly running at a loss, especially the last two.
now if you want to help out people who cant afford money for extra staff why not help out small farmers with a couple of bodies to make life that little easier, or local community groups who run ex council facilities as charities.
but when anyone suggests this is looked down upon and people whine it will cost money and only retail can help. im sorry but the retail experience they are getting is being treated like a dogs body and then at the end of their time being shown how a lot of society view them when they get laughed at when they ask about jobs.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
I have stated before there is no problem with volunteers, I have been in contact with Tesco's and have agreed with their view that the schemes should be completely sanction free and unpaid work to gain experience must completely be on a voluntary basis without fear of sanctions.
Our efforts to close these schemes down in their current state still stands as forced free labour can't be accepted.
You are quoting from an article I copied and pasted regarding manipulation and while I have no doubt those companys can be very persuasive and talk people into working for free really isn't an issue for me as long as it is understood that it is completely voluntary and sanction free. I posted the article because Tesco's contacted the DWP and asked them to remove all sanctions, I wanted to share this information.
It is the Government who are making it difficult for those who wish to volunteer for unpaid work by forcing those who don't within the same schemes, so i'll make it clear now, when the schemes have all sanctions removed and they are 100% voluntary i'll give them my blessing.
Last edited:
Company can afford to pay say 10 employees. Doesn't mean they can afford to pay 12 without damaging the profit margin enough to not make it worth it.
Yes, some companies will be using it as a pool for free labour as you have suggested. On the other hand, the company gets free labour and the person gets to put something on the CV after having been unemployed for a year. Both benefit to an extent?
I would very highly doubt that any company wants only workfare staff on the payroll. Goodwill goes a long way and they want dedicated and qualified staff. Workfare people are unlikely to be that, especially if they don't want to be there. This will damage their reputation and they will lose customers, which I doubt they will want. I agree that the companies are out for their own interest mostly, but doing this will not be in their interest. Having a few however, would be.
Re. your point about using them to provide for small farmers, local community groups etc.,disregarding the infrastucture necessary for this, I agree, it would be a good thing if people want to end up in those kind of things instead of corporate work. However, you have people like spankingtexan and the blogs he is quoting from who are pressuring charities into stopping this as well. It's quite the opposite to being 'looked down upon'. People are actively trying to stop charities from benefitting from this.
The retail experience itself may not be worth massive amounts, but it can be used to a) show future employers what they accomplished outside of their core duties; and b) to learn about the workings of a major organisation.
Someone choosing between someone who has nothing, and someone who has this, is more likely to take someone who has this because it could show initiative to make more of what they just had to do. Of course you need to be willing to do more.
As an intern, I worked hard and made sure I finished my work to the best it could be. I tried to take on more if I could. I had a friend who told me that if there wasn't going to be a job at the end of the internship and if they wern't gonna pay me more, I should just go there, do work, and promptly leave at 6. This didn't sit well with my philosophy and I tried to do as much as I could, stay late if needed and try and get as much experience as I could. This was recognised and appreciated and led to an extension of the internship and a contractor position after that.
Whose to say that isn't possible here? If they worked hard and showed they were very good, surely it is in the company's interest to try and get them on full time?
Of course i'm quoting from the article. You pasted it so I expect that you have read it and agree with it, including the point about manipulation. If not, then I would expect you to say so.
As previously, it is *not* 'forced labour', but yes, it is 'free labour'. Anyway, point has been argued ad nauseum before.
get a job then? whats the problem?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Absolutely beleive they can be very manipulative so yes I do agree BUT it is then down to the individual to make the choice, that is the whole point, chose whether to work for free or not without being punished.
I'm afraid it is forced labour, so best to just agree to disagree.
stop using interships as an example, there not the same. as its something the person has gone after themselves to further their career prospects.
as for companies taking people on who have worked hard and showed initiative maybe you should have a word with the guys who have been laughed at and told there's plenty more people to do what they did for free.
im all for people working for charities, BUT it has to be voluntary not backed up with threats of benefits being taken off them. walking through my local british heart foundation store and they have at a guess half a dozen people in (i go through once every couple of week and im just going off changes in staff). so id say they are getting a good crack of the whip.
as for the old line about it puts something on someones cv, what do you tell the people who have a pritty full cv but due to the economy they cant get work, do they really need to be used and abused as free labor in a supermarket ?
people who have litrally done no work what so ever, i dont mind them being pushed towards doing some sort of work, not saying it should be with a threat of being sanctioned but for someone who is physically fit and young there is no excuse for them not to get work especially at christmas. id say theres more issues with jobcenter advisers not doing their jobs as even me with my knee issues walked in to a warehouse gig (only managed one shift mind) so why someone who is young and fit isnt being frogmarched to a warehouse open day come october i dont know.
if IDS and the DWP where serious about getting long termed unemployed off of benefits they should be working now with agencies and large companies to plan out christmas staffing requirement's, and then come september/october anyone at 12 months with NO work exp should be sent to apply for a position. sure some will be a total waste of space but i bet you'd get a fair bunch back in to work if only for a few months. i know this would effect everyone else who would apply normally but again no matter what happens if its getting someone long term in to work it will stop someone else applying. after all theres not enough jobs no matter how you explain it.
as for companies taking people on who have worked hard and showed initiative maybe you should have a word with the guys who have been laughed at and told there's plenty more people to do what they did for free.
im all for people working for charities, BUT it has to be voluntary not backed up with threats of benefits being taken off them. walking through my local british heart foundation store and they have at a guess half a dozen people in (i go through once every couple of week and im just going off changes in staff). so id say they are getting a good crack of the whip.
as for the old line about it puts something on someones cv, what do you tell the people who have a pritty full cv but due to the economy they cant get work, do they really need to be used and abused as free labor in a supermarket ?
people who have litrally done no work what so ever, i dont mind them being pushed towards doing some sort of work, not saying it should be with a threat of being sanctioned but for someone who is physically fit and young there is no excuse for them not to get work especially at christmas. id say theres more issues with jobcenter advisers not doing their jobs as even me with my knee issues walked in to a warehouse gig (only managed one shift mind) so why someone who is young and fit isnt being frogmarched to a warehouse open day come october i dont know.
if IDS and the DWP where serious about getting long termed unemployed off of benefits they should be working now with agencies and large companies to plan out christmas staffing requirement's, and then come september/october anyone at 12 months with NO work exp should be sent to apply for a position. sure some will be a total waste of space but i bet you'd get a fair bunch back in to work if only for a few months. i know this would effect everyone else who would apply normally but again no matter what happens if its getting someone long term in to work it will stop someone else applying. after all theres not enough jobs no matter how you explain it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
I'm a full time carer, don't claim JSA. Some people can't find work and you know it, doesn't mean it's acceptable to exploit them. You could tell 2.5 million people to get a job then, than ask 2 million of them what's their problem when there are no jobs left.
Last edited: