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

Jennifer_Jane

BobQ wrote: »

Who appointed you as moderator?

I think Martin did. We wanted us to self-regulate to a certain extent.

We got into a lot of trouble a couple of years back, and Martin threatened to close us down completely. That's why we are the only board which is only visible to people who have registered.

And, indeed, we got to a stage where there seemed to be a need for a nice people thread.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

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.

I don't know what job you do but how many unemployed people does your company offer placements with lots of training included?

Linda_D_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Moby, keep it to Discussion Time.

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

It's beyong hope due to your ridiculously stupid posts after which you then thank yourself using your "re-wired" account in an attempt to look like you have support.

Do you have any idea how pathetic and sad that makes you look? You need to grow up and stop using this "re-wired" account.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't know what job you do but how many unemployed people does your company offer placements with lots of training included?

Training costs money. As new starters require high levels of supervision.

So in this particular instance making money for the organisation isn't the issue.

Many of us started working life by performing the menial tasks. Photocopying, filing, going to the post office to refill the franking machine etc. Didn't do us any harm.

StevieJ

Linda_D wrote: »

It's beyong hope due to your ridiculously stupid posts after which you then thank yourself using your "re-wired" account in an attempt to look like you have support.

Do you have any idea how pathetic and sad that makes you look? You need to grow up and stop using this "re-wired" account.

Looks like you have been found out Dev, let's face it you are had a good run with both your (at least) Sockies

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Training costs money. As new starters require high levels of supervision.

So in this particular instance making money for the organisation isn't the issue.

Many of us started working life by performing the menial tasks. Photocopying, filing, going to the post office to refill the franking machine etc. Didn't do us any harm.

I agree but I suspect you were paid something for doing it?

But in that case we need to be clear that these schemes are to make people who have failed to get a job for whatever reason do menial work for free instead of employing other staff on a wage. They have no interest in employing the placements or in teaching them anything and any benefit they get from the scheme is accidental or coincidental to the placement.

Doers anyone know how much Poundland pays the Government for the free labour they get?

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

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.

I agree - I'm all for people being made to do mindless menial tasks in return for receiving benefits, but there's plenty of litter that needs to be picked up and graffiti which needs removing and so on and that should be done before we give pound land free staff.

No doubt people would moan about being made to do the same jobs as convicted criminals doing community service but I care little about such baseless protests.

Graham_Devon

BobQ wrote: »

But in that case we need to be clear that these schemes are to make people who have failed to get a job for whatever reason do menial work for free instead of employing other staff on a wage. They have no interest in employing the placements or in teaching them anything and any benefit they get from the scheme is accidental or coincidental to the placement.

Out of 1,400 workfare placements, Tesco's offered jobs to 280 participants.

Worth remembering that not all will have successfully completed the placement in the first place.

chewmylegoff

280/1,400 is a pretty good success rate for long term unemployed getting jobs if you ask me.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

280/1,400 is a pretty good success rate for long term unemployed getting jobs if you ask me.

I think so.

Especially when you consider we don't know how many successfully completed the placement and would have been suitable to hire. We cant expect companies to take on lost causes.

Mind, having said that, it's jobs offered. Dunno if people took them.