Tescos join free worker rush

red_devil

I thought the forced labour had been scrapped under the WP?

GotToChange

Another devil's advocate/food for though question:
What would happen say - IF - after the period of "work experience" (duration seems to vary) - the person - even IF offered an interview - decides they don't actually WANT to work for the capitalist barstewards; wherer do they stand in terms of Benefits...
???


This whole thing is so messed up.

hannahO_2

OK, everyone, are you ready for this?

Just found out that Tesco's wage bill was £72 million down in a year even though they employed 1000s of more staff. :money:

They managed their savings by getting rid of full-time minimum wage workers and employing more part time staff mostly women they then in turn apply for child tax credit to bump up their wages (have no choice, have they).

It means, Tesco's wages are now paid by your tax money in a round about way. :T

Every little helps..... £72 million

falko89

hannahO wrote: »

OK, everyone, are you ready for this?

Just found out that Tesco's wage bill was £72 million down in a year even though they employed 1000s of more staff. :money:

They managed their savings by getting rid of full-time minimum wage workers and employing more part time staff mostly women they then in turn apply for child tax credit to bump up their wages (have no choice, have they).

It means, Tesco's wages are now paid by your tax money in a round about way. :T

Yep you won't get any full time Tesco jobs now, all part time or so I was told at an interview the other week, If I got the job it would also of been a temporary contract so I would guess what you'll start to see happen now is they'll not renew these temporary contracts, put people on the dole and take in people on this work scheme.

Pupnik

hannahO wrote: »

OK, everyone, are you ready for this?

Just found out that Tesco's wage bill was £72 million down in a year even though they employed 1000s of more staff. :money:

They managed their savings by getting rid of full-time minimum wage workers and employing more part time staff mostly women they then in turn apply for child tax credit to bump up their wages (have no choice, have they).

It means, Tesco's wages are now paid by your tax money in a round about way. :T

Every little helps..... £72 million

Horrific, and things will only get worse. Do the other supermarkets still employ people full time?

hannahO_2

I think this is the photo from today's protest. Exploitation...Every little helps

DylanO

While this is horrible, I don't actually think Tesco are the ones to blame. I think some of the people who run the Work Programme are leading claimants to believe that these placements are mandatory, and the simple fact is that they are not. Tesco is taking a lot of flack for this (somewhat rightly so) but it is Tesco that will ensure that these jobs remain voluntary, and with the massive publicity this has received - more claimants will know this and won't be bullied into working for their benefits.

SpiralGalaxy

DylanO wrote: »

While this is horrible, I don't actually think Tesco are the ones to blame. I think some of the people who run the Work Programme are leading claimants to believe that these placements are mandatory, and the simple fact is that they are not. Tesco is taking a lot of flack for this (somewhat rightly so) but it is Tesco that will ensure that these jobs remain voluntary, and with the massive publicity this has received - more claimants will know this and won't be bullied into working for their benefits.

Multi-million pound companies hiring unskilled labour should not benefit from free labour when they can afford to pay the NMW.

On the other hand, over the past several years, some major retailers have changed their prerequisties for hire to "must have previous experience within (timeframe)." Personally, I think the gov't should pay JSA, and have the employer pay up an equal amount per week, for any position that can be filled by a salaried employee. I would also reduce the maximum time any worker could do this, say two months per company for unskilled labour (it does not take two months to learn the basics of stocking shelves).

I would also look at their turnover: if they are hiring hardly any staff they're taking on under this scheme, but are getting a steady stream and finding reasons not to take on salaried staff, they should lose their participation. On the one hand, the experience could be valuable for people (especially for those newly entering the workforce), but checks and balances need to be in place to prevent exploitation. Perhaps I don't know the ins and outs of this, and something similar is already in place.

hannahO_2

DylanO wrote: »

While this is horrible, I don't actually think Tesco are the ones to blame. I think some of the people who run the Work Programme are leading claimants to believe that these placements are mandatory, and the simple fact is that they are not. Tesco is taking a lot of flack for this (somewhat rightly so) but it is Tesco that will ensure that these jobs remain voluntary, and with the massive publicity this has received - more claimants will know this and won't be bullied into working for their benefits.

While it's true that Tesco should not be the one to blame, we don't know where the money deal/trail started and ended in the first place. Is it the government or Tesco top executives hidden wish? You can't blame us for thinking they they are to blame after pocketing £72 million pounds by getting rid of full time staff and employing part-timers. It looked pretty obvious they were going after part-timers this time and where it was leading to.

custardy

SpiralGalaxy wrote: »

Multi-million pound companies hiring unskilled labour should not benefit from free labour when they can afford to pay the NMW.

On the other hand, over the past several years, some major retailers have changed their prerequisties for hire to "must have previous experience within (timeframe)." Personally, I think the gov't should pay JSA, and have the employer pay up an equal amount per week, for any position that can be filled by a salaried employee. I would also reduce the maximum time any worker could do this, say two months per company for unskilled labour (it does not take two months to learn the basics of stocking shelves).

I would also look at their turnover: if they are hiring hardly any staff they're taking on under this scheme, but are getting a steady stream and finding reasons not to take on salaried staff, they should lose their participation. On the one hand, the experience could be valuable for people (especially for those newly entering the workforce), but checks and balances need to be in place to prevent exploitation. Perhaps I don't know the ins and outs of this, and something similar is already in place.

would you have workfare staff doing that?