Poundland ruling shows Govmt work scheme to be nothing but work for nothing!

Moby

Thousands of unemployed people could be entitled to financial rebates totalling millions after judges in the court of appeal declared that almost all of the government's "work-for-your-benefit" employment schemes were unlawful.
Civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) scrambled to issue new regulations following the ruling of a three-judge panel at the Royal Courts of Justice. They found that Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, had not given unemployed people enough information their rights to appeal against being made to work up to 780 hours unpaid and the penalties they faced should they opt not to do so.

The fact that they still get their benefit when they do the work is neither here or there. The point is why should shareholders from private companies benefit from free labour.....now if the work for your benefit was community based and benefitted everyone, taxpayers etc.....fair enough perhaps!

CLAPTON

The principle that people receiving taxpayers money should get up in the morning and do some sort of work seems a good one.

I receive little pleasure in knowing that a lot of taxpayers money will now go to a lot of lawyers to argue the case that the minuta of procedures weres incorrrectly applied.

The ruling can only do harm to the unemployed.

Graham_Devon

Moby, keep it to Discussion Time.

The thread there is beyond hope. We don't need another thread beyond hope here.

You'll love it. One poster is hoping to see Ian Duncan-Smith hang himself. Literally...while under the pretence of being compassionate for the poor person on the dole who may not want to stack shelves. So you'll fit in there.

ruggedtoast

I have no problem with unemployed people being asked to do something for the dole, preferably something improving like training followed by an opportunity to use it.

I have a big problem with people being forced to work as slaves for Poundland. A shop which makes most of its money by selling things for a pound to the proletariat, that cost less than a pound in other less dishonest shops.

chucknorris

CLAPTON wrote: »

The principle that people receiving taxpayers money should get up in the morning and do some sort of work seems a good one.

I receive little pleasure in knowing that a lot of taxpayers money will now go to a lot of lawyers to argue the case that the minuta of procedures weres incorrrectly applied.

The ruling can only do harm to the unemployed.

I totally agree that the unemployed should have to work for benefits, but (please correct me if I am wrong) in this case the person was already doing unpaid voluntary work in a field related to what she wanted to do in her intended career (museum curator or something like that). Why on earth didn’t they just let her carry on with doing that! How is working in Poundland going to help her more?

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

I totally agree that the unemployed should have to work for benefits, but (please correct me if I am wrong) in this case the person was already doing unpaid voluntary work in a field related to what she wanted to do in her intended career (museum curator or something like that). Why on earth didn’t they just let her carry on with doing that! How is working in Poundland going to help her more?

Because she'd been doing it for over a year, getting no where.

She could have done what she is doing now....part time work for tescos and part time voluntary at what she likes. No harm in that, but she chose not to and chose to sit on benefits for nearly 2 years while turning down other jobs.

It would be nice if we could all do whatever we wanted to do because we chose to do it and get welfare handouts I'm sure.

CLAPTON

chucknorris wrote: »

I totally agree that the unemployed should have to work for benefits, but (please correct me if I am wrong) in this case the person was already doing unpaid voluntary work in a field related to what she wanted to do in her intended career (museum curator or something like that). Why on earth didn’t they just let her carry on with doing that! How is working in Poundland going to help her more?

In principle I agree with you.
However, such an exception would be wide open to abuse.
What constitutues suitable voluntary work? How is it monitored?
Would it have to be a state owned enterprise? What hours would have to be worked? Was she actually available for paid work?

sammyjammy

Temporary legislation is in place from today, people will still be referred and sanctioned if they do not attend. Pending an Appeal no refunds will be made for sanctions already made.

BertieUK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I have no problem with unemployed people being asked to do something for the dole, preferably something improving like training followed by an opportunity to use it.

I have a big problem with people being forced to work as slaves for Poundland. A shop which makes most of its money by selling things for a pound to the proletariat, that cost less than a pound in other less dishonest shops.

Unemployed people should be working under a scheme that benefits the people whose money they are receiving as benefits, namely the taxpayers and not letting a business avoid employing a regular employee.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because she'd been doing it for over a year, getting no where.

She could have done what she is doing now....part time work for tescos and part time voluntary at what she likes. No harm in that, but she chose not to and chose to sit on benefits for nearly 2 years while turning down other jobs.

It would be nice if we could all do whatever we wanted to do because we chose to do it and get welfare handouts I'm sure.

How is building up your CV in the field that you intend to work in getting nowhere? Whilst working in Poundland is getting her somewhere?

Imagine this scenario in say 3 years on, a museum curator position is advertised. Of 2 candidates one has experience working in Poundland and the other has relevant experience working in a museum. All things being equal who do you think the favourite to get the job would be?

I believe that she worked for 3 days a week, in my book she should be entitled to 60% of her benefits and she can work part time or take a 40% cut in her benefits.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

How is building up your CV in the field that you intend to work in getting nowhere? Whilst working in Poundland is getting her somewhere?

It's not really anything to do with building a CV.

It's about doing something for benefits.

I say again, it would be nice if we could all pick and choose where we work, how we work, when we work and say were doing it to make our CV look good.

But we can't really expect welfare to pick up the tab. As I said, she could have asily have done what she's doing now, worked part time and still volunteered. That's even better for her CV.

Charities were knee deep in workfare too, by the way, so it wasn't just poundland and tescos.

Edit: Also prominent to this discussion is that she wasn't a "volunteer". Not in how the tax and benefits system recognises things. She was literally going along and helping out. There was no volunteer role there.