"Human Rights" strikes again.

Degenerate

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But is IS meaningful in the sense that we want to get the point across to people that benefits are not a choice, and not a ay of life.

If people start thinking they are going to have to actively do something to carry on claiming, it's more likely that they may think "oh well, may aswell better myself then and start looking for something proper if I'm going to have to go through this to no benefit to myself".

If you're just looking at this from a "benefit deterrent" point of view, how can you justify the fact that a commericial entity should benefit from the scheme?

drc wrote: »

I don't have a problem with her working for free for a couple of weeks but I don't think she should be working for big companies as free labour. Working for a charity or in an old peoples home would probably be more helpful to society than helping the profits of Poundland or Tesco.

This sums up what I found so outrageous about the whole concept. There are plenty of ways to make benefit claimants do something that don't involve providing free labour to big business. Has it not occured to her detractors that this pool of free temps also reduces the company's need to recruit paid workers in proper jobs, so could actually be harming employment?

Graham_Devon

robpw2 wrote: »

by seeking a judicial reveiw the only thing the courts can do is to put her in the position she would have been if this descision had not been made which would be back on job seekers without sanction .

she would have to sue them for compensation based on breach of human rights at the same time now it doesnt say that she is doing that

And you don't believe they won't?

They can't put her back into the same position. She never lost that position. Lawyers will be all over it like a rash for payouts if her human rights were deemed to be breached.

Otherwise what on earth is the point in all of this? Simply she was annoyed she had to do something she didn't like and want's that recognised in court and that will be the end of it? She and the lawyers won't seek any kind of redress for becoming a victim of "forced labour" if the initial court findings go her way? She won't look for redress for that? Lawyers won't?

Come on now!!

robpw2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you don't believe they won't?

They can't put her back into the same position. She never lost that position. Lawyers will be all over it like a rash for payouts if her human rights were deemed to be breached.

Otherwise what on earth is the point in all of this? Simply she was annoyed she had to do something she didn't like and want's that recognised in court and that will be the end of it? She and the lawyers won't seek any kind of redress for becoming a victim of "forced labour" if the initial court findings go her way? She won't look for redress for that? Lawyers won't?

Come on now!!

I believe the point is to prevent her having to do other "work" placements and to get the govt to review its descision on "free" labour

now she may have had her benfit sanctioned for refusing to complete the placement it said she left after two weeks not that it was a two week placement , these placements can be for up to 8 weeks.

if the courts do find it to be a breach of human rights then this will open floodgates
however the court could disagree with the descision but for another reason .

Mrs_Arcanum

Meanwhile someone who was not bothering to volunteer anywhere or get off their backside to try, will continue to claim JSA and get another two weeks off because the Job Centre in their infinite wisdom think someone MUST do forced work placement regardless of the fact they have already found (in effect) their own work placement.

If she were not already trying to do something then the JSA should be stopped, but this is just ridiculous. Best of luck to her.

Graham_Devon

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Meanwhile someone who was not bothering to volunteer anywhere or get off their backside to try, will continue to claim JSA and get another two weeks off because the Job Centre in their infinite wisdom think someone MUST do forced work placement regardless of the fact they have already found (in effect) their own work placement.

If she were not already trying to do something then the JSA should be stopped, but this is just ridiculous. Best of luck to her.

But the rules are the rules.

I can't turn around when doing my tax return and state "well I didn't want to put that income down....but I've put some down" regardless of how good my intentions were or where that income came from.

Gothicfairy

I have no problem with someone claiming JSA being made to do some kind of community work for free but this just seems like doing a job someone should be paid for.
Maybe I would have liked a part time job shelf stacking in poundland and can't get one because they are getting free labour ..How does that help ?
There is clearly a job that needs doing and clearly thousands and thousands of people who want a job so why should it not be a proper job with wages.

I would rather she was at a museum as they can not afford that many staff really then working for nothing for a major company who should be made to employ someone properly.

Mrs_Arcanum

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But the rules are the rules.

I can't turn around when doing my tax return and state "well I didn't want to put that income down....but I've put some down" regardless of how good my intentions were or where that income came from.

So you would rather some idle wastrel got another two weeks off doing nothing because this is what the Job Centre have in effect done by this decision.

The wastrel at home will not get the volunteer post this girl was doing so who wins? Not the museum, not the girl, only the next person on the list to get the job placement by getting more time off.

Graham_Devon

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

So you would rather some idle wastrel got another two weeks off doing nothing because this is what the Job Centre have in effect done by this decision.

The wastrel at home will not get the volunteer post this girl was doing so who wins? Not the museum, not the girl, only the next person on the list to get the job placement by getting more time off.

There is absolutely no evidence that just because this girl got a placement, there was someone else sat at home, denied a placement for the entire year.

Infact the article suggests these people actually signed up to this (possibly unknowingly according to the article...though I somehow feel that's open to anyone to decide....I doubt there anyone doing this who hasn't actually signed the conditions). The bone idle at home wouldn't even have signed up.

drwho2011

Gothicfairy wrote: »

I have no problem with someone claiming JSA being made to do some kind of community work for free but this just seems like doing a job someone should be paid for.

You mean like the volunteering she's been doing previously at the museum?

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence that just because this girl got a placement, there was someone else sat at home, denied a placement for the entire year.

are u seriously suggesting that if this girl hadn't taken the placement then they couldn't have found someone else to give it to?

i do see the bigger picture tho from the govt/taxpayer viewpoint which is to get this girl to do the placement which would hopefully lead to further or permament employment at poundland and hopefully 'get her off the dole books',

i think what she was doing at the museam is probably providing her with the greater potential for a long term career tho. they shud make decisions on these cases taking this sort of thing into account, otherwise we'll all end up working for tesco