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

Domfrizby

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.

Yeah why such a fuss about poundland? Its all the work for your beneifts placements that we need to know the numbers for.

This trend will continue, lower benefit payments and harder to get.

N1AK

BobQ wrote: »

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 a better position than spending over a year and a half unemployed. Companies are wary of employing people who haven't worked so yes even a graduate could find it easier to get a job afterwards. It also motivates anyone who could try harder to get a job (certainly true in this case as she had refused roles already) to do so.

My issue would be if we are effectively forcing people to work for below minimum wage (paid in the form of benefits). By all means require them to work for benefits but they should be paid minimum wage when doing so (or we shouldn't have a minimum wage).

Percy1983

N1AK wrote: »

It's a better position than spending over a year and a half unemployed. Companies are wary of employing people who haven't worked so yes even a graduate could find it easier to get a job afterwards. It also motivates anyone who could try harder to get a job (certainly true in this case as she had refused roles already) to do so.

My issue would be if we are effectively forcing people to work for below minimum wage (paid in the form of benefits). By all means require them to work for benefits but they should be paid minimum wage when doing so (or we shouldn't have a minimum wage).

Lets see, you are unemployed for 18 months and the do a 6 month placement.

so over the 2 years you get £56.25. so thats £5850 over 2 years, over the 2 years you are forced to work 6 months (call it 26 weeks) so you have got £225 a week for working 30 hours.

Minimum wage £6.19 x 30 hours = £185.70.

So they actually get more than minimum wage in total, they even get much of it before they even work!

N1AK

Percy1983 wrote: »

Lets see, you are unemployed for 18 months and the do a 6 month placement.

so over the 2 years you get £56.25. so thats £5850 over 2 years, over the 2 years you are forced to work 6 months (call it 26 weeks) so you have got £225 a week for working 30 hours.

Minimum wage £6.19 x 30 hours = £185.70.

So they actually get more than minimum wage in total, they even get much of it before they even work!

Given that firms can't start paying below minimum wage for future work based on using up some weird kind of allowance from paying above minimum wage before I think that's a pretty desperate attempt to justify doing it with benefits.

Besides which it just seems awfully pointless to try and work our way round it in the first place. If they made the terms of the scheme that the employer needs to pay in £2 an hour then you'd be able to cover virtually 15 hours a week without increasing JSA. If they're also claiming for housing etc then this could be extended to more hours.

Percy1983

I don't see the problem, you get the money and if you don't get yourself into work you ahve to give something back.

sabretoothtigger

If this was a work scheme for fixing pot holes, I reckon many voters would want it compulsory and permanent

N1AK

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

If this was a work scheme for fixing pot holes, I reckon many voters would want it compulsory and permanent

You may be being humerus but there are valid reasons for that as well as more dubious. If they were filling pot holes then we would be spending public money (benefits) on a public service (roads). I can see why some people don't like the fact that, in their opinion, we are paying wages for a private company.

I'd be all for training up some of them to do road maintenance work.

prowla

If there is a job then it should be a paid job.
There is a benefit to people gaining work experience and skills, but that should not simply be disguised cheap labour.
Back to work groups recommend working in charitable organizations, for instance.
So there is a benefit to people who are out of work taking placements.
If done properly!

CLAPTON

Seems somewhat strange the evident dislike of private enterprise

I rather like the goods and services and employment they provide

Percy1983

I don't really mind if I am essentially paying poundlands wages.

I either pay poundlands wages or pay people watch TV.