We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Poundland ruling shows Govmt work scheme to be nothing but work for nothing!
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Moby, keep it to Discussion Time.
The thread there is beyond hope. We don't need another thread beyond hope here.
Who appointed you as moderator?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
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 have no problem with the principle but please explain how it is so harmful to the unemployed.
In this case a lady was already doing voluntary work of a valuable kind for a charity (= Big Society?) and looking for a job. She was told that she would lose benefits for refusing an unpaid, unskilled job at Poundland.
Was she or the Government or the taxpayer any better off for forcing her to go to Poundland?
Was the charity?
Was Poundland?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
In this case a lady was already doing voluntary work of a valuable kind for a charity (= Big Society?) and looking for a job. She was told that she would lose benefits for refusing an unpaid, unskilled job at Poundland.
It was a placement. Not a job position.
Different thing.
As for the rest of your questions, she now has a job in retail. Coincidence? Seems she is better off, as too is the taxpayer.0 -
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.
Your post contains information I was not aware of.
I still feel that its wrong to compel people to do unskilled work for free for a commercial firm if they are gaining equally useful skills doing voluntary work (even if its not a formal role) provided its documented in some way.
However, this does not excuse her turning down paid employment or failing to look for any if, as you say, was the case. This should have been her first priority.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »It was a placement. Not a job position.
Different thing.
As for the rest of your questions, she now has a job in retail. Coincidence? Seems she is better off, as too is the taxpayer.
OK so it was not a job. I am not opposed to such schemes and as you say it seems to have worked in this case and presumably others.
My concern is that the state should not be supplying free labour in this way. Morrisons have not taken on an extra person in a paid job without reason. The work placement may have helped her (and presumably someone else will still be looking for a job). But why should people be expected to do work (as a placement) for nothing? If they were being trained to do something maybe, but stacking shelves and sweeping floors is just free labour they would otherwise pay someone to do.
The message that people need to be far more flexible about jobs they will do is reasonable, but has stacking shelves in Morrisons now become a graduate profession in the UK?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Governments can create whatever schemes they like but its hard to see the long term situation with unemployment changing.
We've had massaging of the figures for decades in an attemt to keep the magic number unemployed under 3m...even today its split into claiming benefits 1.5m and simply registered 1m.
We've 2.5m on sickness benefit 2m in further education and many under 65yo early retired....millions would like a job.
Maybe its about time we all accepted that a shorter working week for all is some way of solving this problem...business and the government need to work together....not all this part time fiddling where 4 hours a week is classed as a job and another off the dole.0 -
The message that people need to be far more flexible about jobs they will do is reasonable, but has stacking shelves in Morrisons now become a graduate profession in the UK?
Just because you have a degree doesn't make you employable.
Employers are looking for more than just a "certificate".
Looking for jobs in narrow fields is also going to make you compete against a concentration of good candidates.
I don't agree with free coerced labour schemes BTW."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
The message that people need to be far more flexible about jobs they will do is reasonable, but has stacking shelves in Morrisons now become a graduate profession in the UK?
It's not demeaning to start at the bottom even if you are a graduate. If you are worth it you can rise up the organisation.
Not getting a start anywhere helps no-one.0 -
OK so it was not a job. I am not opposed to such schemes and as you say it seems to have worked in this case and presumably others.
My concern is that the state should not be supplying free labour in this way. Morrisons have not taken on an extra person in a paid job without reason. The work placement may have helped her (and presumably someone else will still be looking for a job). But why should people be expected to do work (as a placement) for nothing? If they were being trained to do something maybe, but stacking shelves and sweeping floors is just free labour they would otherwise pay someone to do.
The message that people need to be far more flexible about jobs they will do is reasonable, but has stacking shelves in Morrisons now become a graduate profession in the UK?
They are getting benefits.
Work it out pro rata and the hourly pay will be massive.
It's not as if they are getting nothing in return.
Maybe our problem here is we are just so used to getting money for doing nothing when it comes to benefits? Maybe people are now baulking because they actually have to do something in return for financial support? Workfare works fine in the states, but then again, they don't expect quite so much on a plate.0 -
Its true that doing any kind of work experience will teach you something. I recall doing such jobs in the past and learned that it was possible to get up and get to work by 5am, the reason why instructions need to be followed, how customers and managers treat those sweeping the floor, why attitude matters etc and if the objective is just this then fine but they should be paid NMW instead of benefits.
While I agree that there is nothing wrong with starting at the bottom my impression is that this is not the intention of such schemes. If you get a job doing such work for Morrisons then you may have such opportunities. But these schemes are in danger of being seen as punishments rather than opportunities. There should in my view be an element of training in them and they should try and match the experience offered to capabilities of the participant. Otherwise they are just cheap labour.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards