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

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

You said she was going nowhere, that was my response to that comment

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.

I said that too in the post that you are responding to! I said that she could carry on working 3 days a week where she was and take a 40% cut in benefits or take on another part time job. So I don't think we differ here, or do we?

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

I don't have a particular issue with Poundland, the issue I flagged up was that retail experience was less relevant than museum exerience for her. For others I accept that retail experience might prove valuable experience in the long term.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Well that probably changes everything then, but only specifically to her case. I'm not here to argue for her in particular, I am here to argue on behalf of someone who might be taken out of relevant voluntary work to non relevant work which did appear to be the case (or at least reported as that yesterday on the radio show that I heard), which is why I said in my initial post 'please correct me if I am wrong', because I was taking what I heard on the radio as a true representation of events.

WestonDave

She was entirely without a job, she got unpaid retail experience with Poundland, and now has a retail job with Tesco. So either the experience with Poundland was enough to swing the job with Tesco, or it was enough to motivate her to stop pretending her hobby was some how a job, or a bit of both. Unfortunately for those campaigning against this, she is a bit of a high profile example of the scheme working as she is no longer reliant on benefits - whether by direct result or coincidence!

The museum experience was all well and good whilst she had nothing else to do, but it wasn't a reason to turn down other work in the interim nor avoid the work programme as a means to getting a paying job. I'm sure we've all got hobbies we'd be tempted to pack in our paying jobs for to do as "volunteers" but the country can't function on that basis.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

Well that probably changes everything then, but only specifically to her case. I'm not here to argue for her in particular, I am here to argue on behalf of someone who might be taken out of relevant voluntary work to non relevant work which did appear to be the case (or at least reported as that yesterday on the radio show that I heard), which is why I said in my initial post 'please correct me if I am wrong', because I was taking what I heard on the radio as a true representation of events.

She was volunteering her services to a museum.

However the musem did not have a volunteer role. She was just "there" helping them out.

And thats fine, theres nothing wrong with her filling her time in that way. However, she was doing this instead of looking for jobs. She'd even been offered jobs and turned them down (reported at the time this story first broke out) due to volunteering in her chosen "career".

That is against benefit rules. Volunterring it fine, so long as it doesn't hamper your job searching and certainly so long as it doesn't have you turning down paid employment.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

She was volunteering her services to a museum.

However the musem did not have a volunteer role. She was just "there" helping them out.

And thats fine, theres nothing wrong with her filling her time in that way. However, she was doing this instead of looking for jobs. She'd even been offered jobs and turned them down (reported at the time this story first broke out) due to volunteering in her chosen "career".

That is against benefit rules. Volunterring it fine, so long as it doesn't hamper your job searching and certainly so long as it doesn't have you turning down paid employment.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think I made my position quite clear in my previous post.

spacey2012

I think the distaste comes from the fact that these are companies who would normally employ people who wanted to work that are getting supplied with free workers paid for them by us mugs.
People that genuinely need and want jobs will not get jobs, why pay someone if you can get 100% free labour.
If you are an employer, the incentive to sign up for this must be huge, all the menial tasks that can be learnt on the job can be filled with free labour, as you can now sack anyone in the first two years as you please, why not just do so and have free labour.
A very vicious circle can emerge, sacked one day, sent to work for free.

If unemployed people are to be made to work, I am quite sure many tasks can be found that do not put others out of work or replace paid jobs.
The sour taste that the Etonian tofts are using this to supply chums with free labour puts a bad taste in the mouths of anyone with half a brain.

If a company needs workers, then let them pay them to work, it is risk free for two years, I am sure two years is long enough to learn to trust a worker.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

It's about doing something for benefits.

So she was working in a museum (local council?) i.e. working for the people who pay her benefits, instead you want her to contribute to the profits of the local Poundland entrepreneur?

ruggedtoast

There is no perfect argument. If we have a benefit system that actually provides a safety net then some people will abuse it intentionally and some people will dance around the edges.

We can make laws that everyone on the dole has to be a slave in some marginal part of the economy but we wont like it when we lose our jobs and are directed to the nearest KFC labour camp work for 50p an hour.

The best way to get people off the dole is to provide jobs, something this government has dismal record of achieving.

Graham_Devon

spacey2012 wrote: »

I think the distaste comes from the fact that these are companies who would normally employ people who wanted to work that are getting supplied with free workers paid for them by us mugs.
People that genuinely need and want jobs will not get jobs, why pay someone if you can get 100% free labour.
If you are an employer, the incentive to sign up for this must be huge, all the menial tasks that can be learnt on the job can be filled with free labour, as you can now sack anyone in the first two years as you please, why not just do so and have free labour.
A very vicious circle can emerge, sacked one day, sent to work for free.

If unemployed people are to be made to work, I am quite sure many tasks can be found that do not put others out of work or replace paid jobs.
The sour taste that the Etonian tofts are using this to supply chums with free labour puts a bad taste in the mouths of anyone with half a brain.

If a company needs workers, then let them pay them to work, it is risk free for two years, I am sure two years is long enough to learn to trust a worker.

Sounds like you haven't the faintest idea of how the scheme works. The language "used, such as "toffs" and "chums" shows your intention from the start.

People will only have been sent on this scheme should they have been out of work for over 12-18 months. Therefore, no, a company can't sack the employee one day and get them under workfare the next.

Secondly, employers need full time, reliant staff. Tesco's cannot run a store on the vein hope that someone from workfare might turn up and there will always be a stream of new workfare clients, all conviniently taking over within the hour of the previous one finsihing their placement.

It's not taken jobs. While many companies can accomodate an extra body, it doesn't mean there is a full time job sitting there going. it just means they are doing just that, accomodating someone.

Again, all of these people will have had ample time to find a job before having to go down this route.

Wookster

This board has become infested with labour trolls, class warriors and the occasional right wing nut job.

It is dying a slow and lingering death.