What a numpty! RANT

TrickyWicky

KiKi wrote: »

I'm just saying that NMW doesn't apply, because people keep going on about it.

But it does, as I've said the company have made absolutely no mention of this being self employed work. Not even on their original jobcentre advert did they mention this (Feel free to look it up: CAK/56971 ). They actually clearly state a wage of £6.08 per hour.

So, if they're advertising the NMW in their own JC+ adverts, how does it not apply?

Northerness

TrickyWicky wrote: »

But it does, as I've said the company have made absolutely no mention of this being self employed work. Not even on their original jobcentre advert did they mention this (Feel free to look it up: CAK/56971 ). They actually clearly state a wage of £6.08 per hour.

So, if they're advertising the NMW in their own JC+ adverts, how does it not apply?

Because they lied in the JC+ ads. You only need to look at this ad (which I posted further up the thread) - which clearly states that these very same Carsmart roles are self employed and commission only! This contradiction just proves how misleading they must have been to the "lazy" applicants in the first place.

http://www.thanet.ac.uk/training_solutions/local_employment_opportunities/partner_organisations_vacancies/advertising_sales_executives

TrickyWicky

Different ad, different site, different terms. That doesn't make it a lie when they advertise somewhere else, just different terms / change of mind.

At some way along the line they've changed their minds about whats on offer. Therefore I can only say that we're all correct (or have at some point been correct) in our various views over the NMW issue.

scooby088

Best thing i saw on directgov was a take away delivery driver being paid £6 per hour, goes to show that the jobcentre do not edit or actually vet the jobs put on there.

TrickyWicky

The jobcentre don't even care scoob - I've looked at many jobs that have links that don't even work etc.

Northerness

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Different ad, different site, different terms. That doesn't make it a lie when they advertise somewhere else, just different terms / change of mind.

At some way along the line they've changed their minds about whats on offer. Therefore I can only say that we're all correct (or have at some point been correct) in our various views over the NMW issue.

You're been gullible if you think that. We're talking about the exact same company who couldn't get people to turn up at minimum wage in Canterbury, so they improve their offering by offering no wage at all in Canterbury? How does that work?

It may be a different site and different ad but these are the same jobs - they are simply targeting students with the exact same roles and my guess is the Job Centre put the minimum age on the JC+ ad, not Carsmart (they can get away with it on the student site).

Not paying a NMW for any role is exploitative - a leopard doesn't change it's spots.