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

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Out of interest where are the stats? How many did Poundland take?

Graham_Devon

BobQ wrote: »

Out of interest where are the stats? How many did Poundland take?

The stats were from a Guardian article, of all places, suggesting we shouldn't all be trying to remove this opportunity, as it has been succesful for a fifth of those undertaking a tesco's work placement. Removing it would have removed that opportunity for all those candidates. Tesco's then had to bow into pressure of being labelled as slave drivers and stop the scheme (alongside Boots, Superdrug, Oxfam to name a few). Who knows how many would have had opportunities if it had continued.

I don't know the stats for poundland...but then again, i don't see why we are focusing so much on poundland.

sammyjammy

BobQ wrote: »

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?

There is no force. She had a choice. Do work experience in Poundland and get the benefit or don't get the benefit, you want the money you follow the rules.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The stats were from a Guardian article, of all places, suggesting we shouldn't all be trying to remove this opportunity, as it has been succesful for a fifth of those undertaking a tesco's work placement. Removing it would have removed that opportunity for all those candidates. Tesco's then had to bow into pressure of being labelled as slave drivers and stop the scheme (alongside Boots, Superdrug, Oxfam to name a few). Who knows how many would have had opportunities if it had continued.

I don't know the stats for poundland...but then again, i don't see why we are focusing so much on poundland.

The statistics on the DWP website seem rather convoluted to access. The link below does seem to be an analysis of the same date wchich suggests the contractors are underperforming in their contracts. I know nothing of this "think tank" but it suggests quite low ourcomes.

http://www.cesi.org.uk/keypolicy/work-programme-performance-statistics-inclusion-analysis

Ity does appear that the DWP pay the organisings firms who then enter into sub-contracts with the employers and one or other of them get incentivised payments based on subsequent jobs the referals generate. I cannot see what these payments cost in relation to what the outcomes are.

It would be good to think that these large employers were taking on people to assess them with the genuine intention to offer then a job rather than just for doing the menial jobs.

Percy1983

The is one thing I can't help but think, how was she doing it for nothing, is that the same as she got here benefits for nothing?

I will say I have a friend who worked in am indepentant shop and that went under, from there he was doing labouring work but it was very hit and miss when he had work. Eventually he ended up actually working at poundland through this, guess what he worked hard and he is now employed by poundland.

Personally I would have no trouble with this, if I was unemployed for more than a year I really would just think 'fair game' and get on with it.

stinktankcynic

Can any firm/individual get access to this cheap/free labour from the job centre?
It would solve childcare and old age care problems. Whilst 30 hours a week for JSA is a bit mean, a day and a half work, plus a days training and the rest looking for a job would be fair?

Graham_Devon

stinktankcynic wrote: »

Can any firm/individual get access to this cheap/free labour from the job centre?
It would solve childcare and old age care problems. Whilst 30 hours a week for JSA is a bit mean, a day and a half work, plus a days training and the rest looking for a job would be fair?

Well I certainly wou;dn't want them looking after my kids or older people.

If they can't be bothered to get a job, I can't imagine they'd be too thrilled at changing a nappy.....at either end of the age spectrum.

But this is half the problem in expecting Tescos / Poundland etc to just give everyone a job. Even if the jobs were there, you can guarentee the people moaning that not everyone is given a job would have these people working for them.

DecentLivingWage

so youre happy that we as tax payers pay Poundlands labour costs for them? For so-called pay that was little more than subsistence money anyway, and was even then at risk of being stopped - not only unlawful, but also inept as well . not to do the legal stuff/research etc - lightweights politically!

Moby

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

You still ignore the fact that the corporation is benefitting from the scheme as against the tax payer. That is unethical!

Percy1983

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

so youre happy that we as tax payers pay Poundlands labour costs for them? For so-called pay that was little more than subsistence money anyway, and was even then at risk of being stopped - not only unlawful, but also inept as well . not to do the legal stuff/research etc - lightweights politically!

So use my taxation money and pay them to either work in poundland or stay home and watch tv.

I choose poundland.