What a numpty! RANT

KiKi

He's not paying below min wage - because no NMW applies. They are self employed roles. He's actually not required to pay them anything at all.

Whilst I can understand not wanting to risk it, if I really, really wanted a job, I'd at least give it a go.

KiKi

MissSarah1972

It mentions nothing in the news paper that these people are self employed and seems the job adavert states £500 and the newspaper something like £350

All very misleading if you ask me.

scooby088

I risked it and in the end decided the risk was too much and so ended back on benefits and in the vicious circle again.

Even self employed people have a chance to choose when and how many hours a day they work, it seems the roles he offers a for 7 hours per day so no choice with the freedom of self employment.

CKhalvashi

CK’s just put an arrogant post on their wall, and will speak to an HMRC contact on Monday morning.

Lets get this lot out of business :T

KiKi

scooby088 wrote: »

Even self employed people have a chance to choose when and how many hours a day they work, it seems the roles he offers a for 7 hours per day so no choice with the freedom of self employment.

This is not the case. If you undertake a contract on a self-employed basis, you may well have to work set hours. Flexibility is not the determination of self-employment, it is a number of factors.

I agree, though, it does sound like it's employment - but the 'set hours' wouldn't make it so.

KiKi

TrickyWicky

I dare anyone here who defends the guy to contact the company and ask about a job and the wage. I'd be surprised if you get a reply - I didn't. They were more than interested until I asked for confirmation of the pay - no contact since then.

Of course it makes better publicity to blame benefits, the UK work ethic and to make himself out to be a good employer - gaining plenty of publicity for his company in the process.

Not to mention the crook is using a .org.uk domain for a business and it's supposed to be for non-profit organisations.

ILW

I spent a few years as a self employed salesman. Had to pay all own expenses as well. Paid the bills but you did have to allow for the ups and downs. I would do it again rather than claim though.

Also changes your perspective on employment, you get to realise that you are only worth anything if you make money for the company.

dseventy

I own and run 8 companies across the UK and Europe. I employ 902 staff full-time and about half that PT. I gave up on getting candidates from JC+ about 4 years ago after exactly what the guy in question quotes.

I don't know the ins and outs of this as there seems to be some suggestion that the guy does even pay NMW. However I do, as well as private healthcare, Xmas bonus and a monthly employee lottery.

I told all candidates this, from JC+ applicants to those through recruitment agencies.

The JC+ candidates were genuine, in my experience in 10% of times. 9 out of 10 candidates from JC+ did not want the job, or made it easy not to offer them the job. Things like not researching my company (on the net), turning up in a tracksuit, telling me that "im only here as they will stop my benefit if I don't" etc, etc.

So I can see where he is coming from. I have closed the door to JC+ applicants in my company because of the very things the chap in the article says.

D70

earthbound_misfit

@dseventy:

Please, please don't extend this to all JSA claimants. With so many out of work at the moment you can pick and choose - and get someone who's even more grateful for the job. Fair enough, don't advertise at the jobcentre as they will force people to apply, but please don't exclude people who have genuinely fallen on hard times. Presumably there could be an initial telephone interview, to weed out anyone who wasn't serious?

earthbound_misfit

Ps. Do you have any vacancies at present? (Well, if you don't ask..!)