"Human Rights" strikes again.

Degenerate

drwho2011 wrote: »

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

Can you elaborate on this? I'm trying to get my head around how you think Poundland can choose how much shelf stacking they need done. The need for shelf stackers is driven by customers taking things off the shelves. They have to employ enough people to keep refilling them or they lose business. Unless, of course, the Goverment provides them with a handy source of free labour instead.

Gothicfairy

shop-to-drop wrote: »

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.

So ? I am sorry but I really don't get your point. Why has this anything to do with people from Eastern Europe ? Is there some other point you are trying to make cos this topic is about one girl and a job ( or not job) in Poundland.

Gothicfairy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I really do hope you are not suggesting that I said it was forced slavery or anything close.

I don't mind people having to work for their benefits but I want paid jobs to be just that..Someone would love a little cash for a couple of hours shelf stacking and through this scheme that is not possible. That is my problem.

Gothicfairy

drwho2011 wrote: »

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

I answered this already, as I said : shelves will always need stacking and that is true so clearly there is a job there that needs doing. No store is going to want someone there doing sod all so there must be work for them to do otherwise why have them there at all ?

shop-to-drop

Gothicfairy wrote: »

So ? I am sorry but I really don't get your point. Why has this anything to do with people from Eastern Europe ? Is there some other point you are trying to make cos this topic is about one girl and a job ( or not job) in Poundland.

You said there were no parttime jobs due to these schemes that is why I made the point. Your comment was a total exaggeration.

Gothicfairy

shop-to-drop wrote: »

You said there were no parttime jobs due to these schemes that is why I made the point. Your comment was a total exaggeration.

No, what I said was " 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 ? "

Not really the same thing is it ? You seem to be making it up as you go along and I am still not sure how or why you ended up with Eastern Europeans though, Seems to me you might have another issue to push.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

I like that someone else said absolutely what I think about this.

Tbh, a little shelf stacking wouldn't hurt most graduates, even the successful ones could often do with a stint in such a job, and I'm sure the museum would cover her absence. You never know, they might have had to before, say if her parents took her on holiday with them, or she went to Glastonbury or something.

tartanterra

She's been on benefits for 18 months.
Her degree has failed to lead to a job.
Her volunteer work has failed to get her a job.

She has now completed training at Poundland, which as a company has lots of vacancies and an ambitious expansion programme. They also have a fast track scheme for managers.

Why did they not snap up this young woman for their management scheme? She is, after all, Degree educated.
They didn't even try to recruit her as a shelf stacker.

Does make me wonder.....

DaddyBear

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Two weeks work in return for benefits...and shes taking the government to court over it?

I do wonder where the money for lawyers etc is actually coming from!

Car insurance, council tax, income tax. In other words tax payers are all paying for unscrupulous lawyers to represent mainly non-taxpaying clients AND then paying for the compensation the clients receive. The sooner we get rid of no-win-no-fee and dress down human rights laws the better.

drwho2011

Degenerate wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this? I'm trying to get my head around how you think Poundland can choose how much shelf stacking they need done. The need for shelf stackers is driven by customers taking things off the shelves. They have to employ enough people to keep refilling them or they lose business. Unless, of course, the Goverment provides them with a handy source of free labour instead.

Ok I will try again to explain this concept to you and Gothicfairy

Businesses operate on supply and demand.

Demand drives profit.

Business must work out appropriate staff levels to ensure demand is satisfied, too many staff means business decreases profit.

Staff = one of the biggest costs a business will incur, not just wages but also in training costs.

Deciding staff levels based on constant turnover typically leads to poor levels of efficency, customer service and work ethic.

Therefore a business would not employ someone unless they have a good chance of it being worthwhile in the first place, and why would you choose to rely on the possibility of "free" short term labour of often dubious quality, if anything these companies should be paid to provide training to these people.