"Human Rights" strikes again.

Gothicfairy

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.

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.

Can you please name me one place where they need trained shelf stacker's ?
What you seem to be missing from my post is that is there is clearly a job ( ie a job that needs doing ) then why not just employ someone and pay them and thus have a staff member .......

That is what I was saying and somehow it got slightly twisted

Gothicfairy

drwho2011 wrote: »

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..

But shelves will always need to be stacked and that is the job in question.
There are thousands out there that would love such a job and it would make a massive difference to them so why should they not get the chance ?

Graham_Devon

Gothicfairy wrote: »

Can you please name me one place where they need trained shelf stacker's ?
What you seem to be missing from my post is that is there is clearly a job ( ie a job that needs doing ) then why not just employ someone and pay them and thus have a staff member .......

That is what I was saying and somehow it got slightly twisted

Everywhere needs trained shelf stackers.

Health & Safety. Product dates. Cleanliness. Pricing.

You can't just go and lift things out of a box and dump it on a shelf. Sure, it's minimal training, but alot of training to devote to someone for 2 weeks.

I fear this conversation will just go round in circles though, as there are people with their own opinion, quite rightly....and they simply do not like the thought of doing something for benefits that they don't want to do. Whatever it was would be an issue.

But I do find it highly amusing that working for poundland on a non paid basis is forced slavery, whereas working for a museum on a non paid basis for 18 months, hoping for a job is all fine and to be congratulated.

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

with a face like hers she would do well working on a ghost train as one of the scary things that jump out and scare sh it outta you

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

Gothicfairy wrote: »

Can you please name me one place where they need trained shelf stacker's ?
What you seem to be missing from my post is that is there is clearly a job ( ie a job that needs doing ) then why not just employ someone and pay them and thus have a staff member .......

That is what I was saying and somehow it got slightly twisted

apply for a job in tesco and part of the training is to watch how you put things on shelves. my mate had to endure the embrassment of that

drwho2011

Gothicfairy wrote: »

But shelves will always need to be stacked and that is the job in question.
There are thousands out there that would love such a job and it would make a massive difference to them so why should they not get the chance ?

The point your missing is that in most cases these "jobs" wouldn't exist if they had to pay the staff.

Its the same as the previous future jobs fund, the employer got the equivalent of 3 months wages @ NMW, in the vast majority of cases they weren't kept on at the end of 6 month placements

Kennyboy66

StevieJ wrote: »

I am confused, I thought Maily type people were previously suggesting that people on JSA should be doing voluntary work to earn their benefits?

They have just realised that it will be their graduate kids forced to work for free for Poundland and Tesco sweeping up and stacking shelves under the guise of "work based training".

They have just realised that it will be their kids targeted as they are the soft option - being that much more pliable and malleable the those who can barely read and write.

The employers don't need to provide any training themselves they can get the "Skills Funding Agency" to do the training (paid by the government, natch).

They can then get up to 6 weeks free Labour that drops nicely through to the bottom line. And repeat adfinitum.

The retailer at the end of training can offer 12 hour a week contracts (Sunday or Saturday) because then there is no employers national insurance to pay, or if they are particularly ruthless, offer a zero hour contract.

Very useful to have gullible fools who think this is a great idea though.

drwho2011

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Everywhere needs trained shelf stackers.

Health & Safety. Product dates. Cleanliness. Pricing.

You can't just go and lift things out of a box and dump it on a shelf. Sure, it's minimal training, but alot of training to devote to someone for 2 weeks.

And yet after 18 months on the dole she hadn't managed to even get a job as a shelf stacker, so clearly the placement was to her benefit.

shop-to-drop

Gothicfairy wrote: »

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 ?

I know many eatern europeans with parttime jobs. Many have several or a fulltime job and a parttime job. If all these jobs disappeared so would they.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

In principle I support the increased scrutiny of benefit recipients and the notion of giving the long term unemployed a connection with the workplace. I'd like to think that a little common sense would be applied though.

The crucial question is to ask who was stacking the shelves before Tesco and Poundland got a load of free labour to do it? Is subsidising their workforce the best use of taxpayers' money?

I did all kinds of unglamorous, low paid jobs when I was a recent graduate, plus some volunteering in a charity shop, while I worked out what I wanted to do. Surely working even 3 nights a week in a bar would pay more than JSA and would leave weekdays free for volunteering and interviews?