[Martyn*]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
You can't "force" someone to work for you for pay, let alone for free.

But it's more complicated than that: young people today often have to take unpaid internships, or become an apprentice on lower than the minimum wage. There is a tacit "coercion" here that is impossible to police or even define because it operates on a societal level. Similarly, in the corporate environment, people are encouraged to always be "on call", even when on holiday or at weekends, something facilitated by technology. It produces an arms race at the top just as there is one at the bottom, and induces the same stress. And because the employees are paid on a yearly salary, they are effectively working for free whenever they do overtime, just so they can avoid being the first up for the chop when hard times come.

Thankfully, one of the best things the last government did for this country was to introduce the minimum wage and protect the people most at risk from the ravages of the economy.

Thanks.

[NapoleonDynamite]

(Original post by Martyn*)
You don't know who they are? They buy the unemployed, and they also work for weapons/arms contractors. The woman who owns it is a millionairess and lives in a mansion. They (allegedly) bully and lie to their "customers" into accepting low-paid work and place sanctions on them for no good reason, and many profess that they are a waste of tax-payers money.

I just looked on their site and their Wikipedia page. You sure they do this stuff?

[L i b]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It's not complicated. It's not a philosophical question.

No, it's a legal one. The only answer which can be given would be 'more information is required'.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by Martyn*)
You don't know who they are? They "buy" the unemployed, and they also work for weapons/arms contractors. The woman who owns it is a millionairess and lives in a mansion. They (allegedly) bully and lie to their "customers" into accepting low-paid work and place sanctions on them for no good reason, and many profess that they are a waste of tax-payers money.

googled them and found:

All the matters raised in the article are known to both A4e and the DWP and have been the subject of both an A4e investigation and a DWP led investigation. The A4e investigation revealed that whilst candidates had real job opportunities, these jobs did not meet the funding criteria being less than 13 weeks and 16 hours a week in duration. These investigations have resulted in the departure of both individuals from the company and the ceasing of all activity with the employment agency concerned

Evidence for them working for weapon/arms contractors?

[screenager2004]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Neither of those are relevent to the question. Forced to work without wage as in making someone do something that they don't want to do without getting a basic wage (i.e. £5.75 per hour or more).

It's immoral but you can be paid in non-pecuniary 'wages'. It doesn't have to be a monetary wage.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by NapoleonDynamite)
I just looked on their site and their Wikipedia page. You sure they do this stuff?

Well, in Scotland an unemployed man has won a court case against them because they bullied him, lied to him and then sanctioned his benefits for months for no good reason. In Birmingham they have been found to bully and talk down to people, and one emplpyer is on record saying that meeting targets and securing his job, therefore, is more important than helping the unemployed. Just google "Benefit busters" and you'll read all about it.

This A4e is new in my town, and I'll be amongst the first in the NW to be on it.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
googled them and found:

All the matters raised in the article are known to both A4e and the DWP and have been the subject of both an A4e investigation and a DWP led investigation. The A4e investigation revealed that whilst candidates had real job opportunities, these jobs did not meet the funding criteria being less than 13 weeks and 16 hours a week in duration. These investigations have resulted in the departure of both individuals from the company and the ceasing of all activity with the employment agency concerned

Evidence for them working for weapon/arms contractors?

BAe apparently. I did write apparently, didn't I?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by screenager2004)
It's immoral but you can be paid in non-pecuniary 'wages'. It doesn't have to be a monetary wage.

Right? Non-pecuniary 'wages'.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by L i b)
No, it's a legal one. The only answer which can be given would be 'more information is required'.

Yes. It is a legal one. But I think the use of the word "wage" in my post gave it an obvious clue. It's basically a living wage, not some kind of pocket money for doing mum's dishes.

[Dude Where's My Username]

That's not work. Thats slavery, which I believe is illegal.

So yes

[crocker710]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Yes. It is a legal one. But I think the use of the word "wage" in my post gave it an obvious clue. It's basically a living wage, not some kind of pocket money for doing mum's dishes.

You sound like such a douche.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by crocker710)
You sound like such a douche.

You know me well.

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Is it against the law to be forced to work for no actual wage?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

No.

Being asked to take part in these work opportunities is good for the unemployed, who often have little or no work experience.

Many people need this to get a job, what else would you be doing with the rest of the fortnight if you are on benefits, it is a privileged to give these people a chance to give back to the community so they don't have to feel excluded or like they are dependent or "leeching".

Most private sector employers offer wages and salaries, you might want to check those out if the dole is asking more of you than one hour a fortnight.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by obstupefacere)
No.

Being asked to take part in these work opportunities is good for the unemployed, who often have little or no work experience.

Many people need this to get a job, what else would you be doing with the rest of the fortnight if you are on benefits, it is a privileged to give these people a chance to give back to the community so they don't have to feel excluded or like they are dependent or "leeching".

Most private sector employers offer wages and salaries, you might want to check those out if the dole is asking more of you than one hour a fortnight.

Looking for a job, then working and getting a wage to lift oneself out of poverty. They use tax payers money to buy the unemployed and then get them into low-paid jobs. That is not going to help them get out of poverty, is it?

[obstupefacere]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Looking for a job, then working and getting a wage to lift oneself out of poverty. They use tax payers money to buy the unemployed and then get them into low-paid jobs. That is not going to help them get out of poverty, is it?

Well the biggest obstacle to poverty is the minimum wage. Because of Left Wing interventionism we have been left with 7% of our population priced out of work. These individuals labor is not worth six pounds an hour and so they are needlessly forced into a life of benefit dependence.

I see these schemes as an opportunity for otherwise inexperienced workers to get some work experience and increase their labor value, so that they may be able to seek employment at a higher rate.

We have many education systems in this country to help the poor educate themselves and skill up that way; these benefit schemes are a way for otherwise inactive people passively receiving benefits to a) Contribute to the society, and b) get work experience and increase their employability / labor value.

Ideally, in a free society without government intervention we wouldn't have the minimum wage pricing people out of work, however these programs seem to be a decent solution to help those workless who truly want to skill up and become employable.

I guarantee, a few months turning up at a workplace and getting a sound reference is going to help more people out of poverty than sitting at home. It will also reduce the incidence of depression and feelings of low value - as they can be proud to be giving something back.

[TurkeyProphet]

No it isn't.

[miranda-ae]

(Original post by Riderz)
This is related to you're other thread.

And no. You do receive something in return. It doesnt have to be a fixed wage, it could be benefits in kind.



For those who haven't see the other thread, he's kicking his toys out the pram because now he has to do something in return for his benefits. Boo-****ing-hoo. Its not a lot of work (a few hours a week) and its not hard work. So quit complaining.

But surely he isn't being forced to work there? He has a choice, either work and get benefits, or don't and don't get anything. It's almost like (now wait for it, this is a shocker) a job!

And this obvs isn't a 'simple question' OP, because so many people have found holes in it.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by Sammydemon)
The governemnt is the law so I suppose they can consider themselves excempt if the labour is a form of recourse that you are providing to society (as a method of punishment).

The UK Government executes and governs with the law, it is however part of the same body, Parliament, that makes the law. The Courts interpret the law and the Police and various agencies enforce the law.

The UK Government, despite the over sized egos of some PM's and Cabinet Ministers are not the law. Thank god for that too.

[Chav Princess]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Huh? Oh you mean A4e? Ever been on it? Then shut up. Besides, it can be anything up to 30 hours a week. But then this is not directly about A4e, but something which I have read related to A4e.

The thread title is misleading.

Doing work in the community to earn taxpayers' money is completely different to what you are suggesting. The wage is the taxpayers' money - which, up until now, has been a generous donation.