"Human Rights" strikes again.

drwho2011

Gothicfairy wrote: »

But isn't that the whole problem ? This scheme is going to mean that part time paying jobs are now done by free labour so how would you then get a paying part time job ?

The problem with this argument is many of these 2 week jobs won't exist if they weren't unpaid.

Businesses don't plan staffing around when they might be able to get free labour from the government and they when they offer these placements they have limited control over the person they get and the quality of their work.

If anything each time someone starts one of these placements the business is taking on a risk and if it turns out badly could cost the business as a result..

Road_Hog

Generali wrote: »

I just heard her on Radio 5. She was working 5 hours a day, 5 days a week.

Yes, that is the standard hours for the scheme.

£53.45 is the amount of benefit she gets paid. To me, that works out at a little over £2 an hour.

Now let's see what companies are involved in it,

The Government programme aims to help around 250,000 young people over the next two years through training and unpaid work experience in the public, private and charity sectors. Placement providers include chains such as Poundland, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Argos and Asda."

If there aren't 250,000 jobs available within these companies, I really can't see the point in 'training' to stack shelves. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting people off the dole, but not for giving large multi-nationals free labour paid by the taxpayer.

She was supposed to get an interview afterwards, which never happened. I'd like to see an audit of how many people have been sent on these 'training' course by company and how many have been taken on.

Also she was used in the run up to Christmas, very convenient. The training (from memory) is meant to be 6 or 8 weeks long, but they are allowed to leave after 2 weeks, although there has been many complaints that the job centre staff do not inform the trainees of this.

On top of this and this was also in the previous thread, the woman wasn't told when she went to an open day that she was committing herself to going on this 'training'.

Graham_Devon

Gothicfairy wrote: »

But isn't that the whole problem ? This scheme is going to mean that part time paying jobs are now done by free labour so how would you then get a paying part time job ?

Sorry, but this simply doesn't stack up.

A business can not plan their staffing on the possibility of an unknown, untrained, possibly unreliable job placement being sent at an unknown point in time for an unknown length of time.

These placements will not be easy free labour. The placements will need training, possibly uniforms, constant monitoring....all for 2 weeks.

Let's not forget that a large number of these people will be disgruntled to have to be there in the first place, so will need an eye on them all the time possibly.

Many charities simply do not have the funds, the manpower, or the inclination to want to undergo such a scheme. Charities would need to devote manpower and time to these placements. Something charities are low on the ground on in the first places in many cases.

It's a bit hysterical to suggest this will get rid of part time jobs. Business needs reliable, known quantities of labour.

Graham_Devon

Road_Hog wrote: »

Yes, that is the standard hours for the scheme.

£53.45 is the amount of benefit she gets paid. To me, that works out at a little over £2 an hour.

£53.45 a week x 18 months = £4,170.

2 weeks work in poundland, at 7 hours a day, 5 days a week = 70 hours.

£4,170 / 70 = £59.57 an hour.

shop-to-drop

Gothicfairy wrote: »

But isn't that the whole problem ? This scheme is going to mean that part time paying jobs are now done by free labour so how would you then get a paying part time job ?

No it isn't Do you really think all part time jobs have disappeared? If that was the case all the Eastern Europeans would have gone back home.

chewmylegoff

So...

She did a geology degree.

Had been on unemployment benefit since leaving university in mid 2010.

Was volunteering at a museum as her "get a job" strategy, whilst living on £50/week.

Told she had to do a 2 week placement at poundland (appears she must have expressed an interest in this, and that she could have said during the first week that it wasn't helping her and quit, but that is just my assumption from the wording of the article and could be complete rubbish).

She did the placement, and then went back to the museum.

The museum being the museum and learning centre of writing and pen trade memorabilia.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a museum about selling pens to people, but frankly I don't see why jobseekers should pay for her to do this effectively as a hobby (clearly no connection to her degree, and no previous experience so not as if she has a career she is developing by doing that).

However, I am not a fan of a scheme which lets employers like poundland exploit free staff for manual labour, as this is not only pretty pointless, but deprives people of paid employment.

I would have preferred it if she had been offered a full time job stacking shelves in poundland, and have the benefit removed if she refused that offer.

In any event, there seems to have been very little harm caused, as she worked at poundland for 2 weeks and has now gone back to the museum, so all the fuss above about the compensation etc. is very much irrelevant as the most she's going to get is some token payment, as there is no material loss.

Frankly I rather doubt this will ever be pursued, just making a bit of fuss for the press, probably sponsored by a political party in the background. Expect this will quietly fizzle out.

Degenerate

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, but this simply doesn't stack up.

A business can not plan their staffing on the possibility of an unknown, untrained, possibly unreliable job placement being sent at an unknown point in time for an unknown length of time.

Of course they can. That's exactly what they get when they take on a new starter in these sorts of jobs anyway. Shelf stackers don't generally come with a long resume and glowing references, if they did they would be more than shelf stackers. It's the bottom of the employment food chain.

deary65

Has anyone actually read the wording of this rule or regulation, or have a link to it. I'm sure posters would be interested to read it.

chewmylegoff

p.s. i can see how a shelf stacking placement would be useful for some people - i.e. if you'd been unemployed for years and had no qualifications etc, it would be useful for you to be cajoled into leaving the house and doing a regular working week to get you into the habit of doing it. they should probably make some sort of attempt to fit placements to the appropriate people.

Gothicfairy

shop-to-drop wrote: »

No it isn't Do you really think all part time jobs have disappeared? If that was the case all the Eastern Europeans would have gone back home.

what on earth has this got to do with people from Eastern Europe ? I have never met one that works a part time job. Maybe I am missing something here but I can't see how this topic got onto where someone is from job wise.

and I didn't say there were no part time jobs, I said that this scheme could see the end of them because if a company can just get someone for free every 2 weeks then why would they bother employing someone ?