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

Percy1983

BobQ wrote: »

To be fair, the Government are doing some positive and innovative things to help people into work. I had assumed that it was just the Work Programme and that it was essentially based on compulsory free labour.

There are several schemes available and some do involve voluntary work experience to benefit your CV and employability. Its also possible to volunteer to work for a voluntary organisation. Also there is more to the Work Programme than compulsory work experience without pay. The WP seems to incentivise its contractors through payment by results based on whether those referred to it get and sustain a job, and involves each referred person getting an advisor to encouraghe them to explore a wider range of opportunities including work placements. As the firms are paid by results it makes sense to them that they focus on the easy cases who are easily employable.

My view is that the Government has made a mistake by conflating the compulsory activities with the advisory and voluntary activities. I would rather they helped those who wanted help and so were more likely to benefit from it.

Where people are not finding a job but appear not to be trying or interested I see no problem with requiring them to do a NMW job stacking shelves with the threat of otherwise losing benefits.

But the Government seems to have conflated the genuine help with what is essentially a punishment.

I would agree in many respects that it can seem a little harsh on those who a really looking for work and are just unlucky.

The problem is if you leave a loophole like if you find voluntary work how many will suddenly be 'helping a mates business' or should I say having a mate just say they help when they don't.

Where if they rules are very strict and with companies who will certainly follow the rules (tescos, poundland etc) then there is no loophole for people to pass through and continue to be work shy and get full benefits.

I will say it is sad it needs to be done this way as I know many charities who could use my skill set if I was unemployed and I geniunely would put the work in, but for every one like me there will be 3 who try to abuse the system.

Generali

Is it just me or has the narrative on this story changed over time:

1. Workfare introduced. Complaints from some that this is 'slavery'.
2. Woman sues Government. Woman wins case.
3. "Ha", say the complainants, "we told you this was slavery".
4. The court's ruling finally gets read. "Ha", say the complainants, "I told you this Government was a bit sloppy with the paperwork (let's disregard the fact that the Civil Service does administration and the Government does policy as it's inconvenient to my beliefs)".

This is just being used as a stick to beat the Government. The court case doesn't vindicate this ridiculous notion that people are being forced into slavery.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Is it just me or has the narrative on this story changed over time:

1. Workfare introduced. Complaints from some that this is 'slavery'.
2. Woman sues Government. Woman wins case.
3. "Ha", say the complainants, "we told you this was slavery".
4. The court's ruling finally gets read. "Ha", say the complainants, "I told you this Government was a bit sloppy with the paperwork (let's disregard the fact that the Civil Service does administration and the Government does policy as it's inconvenient to my beliefs)".

This is just being used as a stick to beat the Government. The court case doesn't vindicate this ridiculous notion that people are being forced into slavery.

The 'slavery' bit is clearly a nonsense however it surely isn't unreasonable to have doubts around the following.

1) That all workfare contracts were given to large corporations - when, the most effective support & help for the really difficult cases has been delivered by charities or not for profit ventures.

2) That they are 'gaming the system' by helping the easiest people.
see below (I know its the Guardian !)

3) That giving the likes of Poundland 'free labour' can be counter productive - if its replacing paid for jobs.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/19/vulnerable-jobseekers-work-programme-providers

On the specific cases, its a little difficult to have to much sympathy for a HGV driver who hasn't worked in 4 years or a graduate who was volunteering in a museum. Whilst volunteering is an entry mechanism for many museums staff, its hard not to think you couldn't mix volunteering with part time work (in a supermarket for example).