Exploitation and no lunch hour.

Hammyman

Martynb_ wrote: »

I know I didn't do a 9-5. But if I did, I still would not get a break. No-one in that place gets a break. And I need to eat or I get ill. You depress me.:(

And you're a disgrace to the male population of the UK...

Hammyman

Martynb_ wrote: »

They are workaholics. Workaholism is a terrible disease. I don't have it. Thankfully.

You don't have anything like even the remotest ability to put any effort at all into work. That is why you're living on £64 a week having to do these courses and working for free to keep the DWP happy.

Judith_W

Back to not having a break, just cos the women don't, doesn't mean you couldn't just walk out after 6 hours saying I'm taking my 20 min break I'm entitled to and have your humous sandwich.

Also worried that whatever you're having for breakfast is not sustaining you, clearly you need to eat better.

Emmzi

GotToChange wrote: »

BUT - the benefit should be equal and mutual, not free/hugely "subsidised" labour (with of course, none of the usual protection afforded), I'm also not clear on what "skills" that he didn't already possess, he is actually gaining? To be strictly mathematical and horribly pedantic, the OP has fulfilled his financial obligation after working about 10.5 hours.... and also I assume has to cover costs of travel and the meals - which started this whole thread.
Just sayin'

often a huge barrier to staying in employment if you haven't had a routine for a while is getting into a routine where you get to places on time and can do a full days work.

It looks like OP has not done that for a while so his ability to actually turn up is in doubt. The placement allows him to show he can graft and time keep. This makes him a lower risk for an employer if he can stick with it.

GotToChange

Emmzi wrote: »

often a huge barrier to staying in employment if you haven't had a routine for a while is getting into a routine where you get to places on time and can do a full days work.

It looks like OP has not done that for a while so his ability to actually turn up is in doubt. The placement allows him to show he can graft and time keep. This makes him a lower risk for an employer if he can stick with it.

I understand what you're saying - and am aware of it anyway. As far as I can see though, it is still taking advantage of people who can ill-afford to be taken advantage of. The only "good" thing about this is that it does mean that he can leave the job with no sanction should it prove to be unsuitable from his point of view (which is possible, is it not?). This does not happen if you go into a job - paid etc etc - and are sorely disappointed; you can end up stuck somewhere dreadful working for dreadful people - trying hard to get another job and get out and certainly penalised in terms of Social Security of deciding to "walk" with no new job lined up.
I say again, having people work for nothing - under the guise/excuse of them having been out of work for some time - is insulting in too many ways to count. I doubt very much that it is done this way for the "employee's" benefit.

Sambucus_Nigra

Amid the confusion about this and that; just take a break. They can hardly sack you for it can they?

Simples.

ILW

OP has disappeared, probably gone for a lie down.

GotToChange

ILW wrote: »

OP has disappeared, probably gone for a lie down.

He said he was taking the dog out - and also mentioned that he goes to the gym.
Probably anything would be better than getting bashed on here - although of course it does continue in his absence.

ceridwen

saintjammyswine wrote: »

But as you have already said, you haven't worked 9-5, you have worked 5 hours. And yes, in a normal working day why wouldn't that suffice? Have a large, healthy breakfast such as porrige & fruit and then a carb heavy meal such as pasta, potatoes & veg in the evening.

Errr...HELLO!!!! - because 3 meals a day is the norm in our Society - ie breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I find this most odd that someone could even think in terms of someone who worked, say, 9-5 not having a break for lunch at some point 12 noon - 1pm. In our society - lunchbreak starts at some point between 12 noon and 1pm and lasts at least half an hour. That is what is necessary. That is what is the norm. It is entirely fair to expect to have this lunchbreak too.

If someone starts work at, say, 9am and works for less than 6 hours - then that is their decision and THEIR decision only as to whether to forego a lunchbreak (ie because the law doesnt allow for a lunchbreak unless someone has worked at least 6 hours) - but it is not up to anyone else to decide that one does not require a lunchbreak at lunchbreak time.

sharnad

Martynb_ wrote: »

They do it with everyone and each other. Really annoying sometimes. I just don't share their sense of humour. I did 5 hours today, but no-one no matter what hours they do gets a break. If I am planing on working there 9-5 I'm going to need food to keep me going. 5 hours and blood sugars started to drop, and I couldn't finish lifting over a hundred heavy metal shelves up two flights of stairs...on my own.

So you dont work long enough to have a rest break, did they say if you work longer you will get one