[internet tough guy]

Described by some as 'slave labour', its been on the news for a few days now. Just want to see how many here are against this scheme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17160065
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17163394

It's aimed at 16-24-year-olds on jobseeker's allowance, and allows them to work for a company for up to eight weeks.

Critics say the project is a form of "slave labour" because people work for nothing, while keeping their benefits

Participants continue to receive jobseeker's allowance (JSA) and may receive a contribution to travel or childcare costs.

But anyone who cuts a placement short after more than a week may have their benefits stopped for two weeks.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling defended the scheme, saying half of those who joined had found a job, often with the company that placed them on work experience.

[Herr]

The reality of it : Most of those who are on that scheme would never be offered employment any other way.

[A Mysterious Lord]

I opted into it, I start on Monday.

However, it's with Lancashire County Council so I won't be working in the private sector, I get a reference at the end of it and first pick of the internal vacancies before they're advertised. Call me a sellout if you want, I don't care.

[Yellow_Watermelon]

Private company's should not be involved in this.
government, council, nhs etc is acceptable

[daisydaffodil]

It should only be jobs in the public sector and not companies that are looking for cheap labour.. JSA should also rise in line with the minimum wage, there should be assistance with transport and childcare, and there should be some kind of icentive at the end (i.e. a reference).

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by Yellow_Watermelon)
Private company's should not be involved in this.
government, council, nhs etc is acceptable

Thats what I don't get, why not just limit this scheme only to the public sector. That way, there won't be criticisms of big companies making extra profit on the back of taxpayers' money, and there won't be concerns that this will put off firms from hiring actual paid workers.

[Left Hand Drive]

Exploitation. It not that people not have enough experience these days. Its the lack of jobs. **** tories.

I work btw.

[Cowzo]

My understanding is that it's a voluntary scheme. Hardly slave labour.

If gets people off the dole then it's good. If its public sector job then even better as then your not just supposedly 'increasing profits' for a private employer.

If I was on JSA then I'd opt in for this scheme, if I saw that on CV I'd be more inclined to hire them. People that won't do it cause 'they won't get paid' need to reevaluate their situation.

[Tahooper]

What, no "I think this is a great idea" option?

So do you think people are either against it or indifferent?

[SilverArch]

I'm against companies such as Tesco using it. They have massive profits - they can afford to actually employ people on full wages to do it. Such companies use JSA people to to the work of the full time employees, and cut the employees wages as a consequence. Which is just wrong, and will end up increasing unemployment not decreasing it. Giving companies incentive to lay off their employees so they can get cheaper workers from the government is not going to help the situation in any way

Small business, charities and similar that cannot afford any more paid emplyees, I'm fine with. Hopefully the experiences will look good on CV's

[That Bearded Man]

Considering that the government created a workforce of students who take no more money from the taxpayer, this could definitely be considered slavery. If the scheme was used fairly then this could help small businesses and services such as museums open. Also it does give experience, sounds like it would benefit them for future employment. Then again, since no jobs are being created, you're simply depriving someone else that job, I mean, if I've done a first year of university over my summer I'd want a part-time job, due to the competition it sounds like you'll lose out. Currently it seems big businesses are exploiting this for cheap labour instead of hiring someone. Therefore for now it sounds like slavery.

[curtis871]

I'm fine with it and want to start soon. I do think companies shouldn't be allowed to just keep going through people on this scheme to avoid ever paying anyone but tbh I don't think that happens very often if you do well. I think a limit on companies only being allowed 4 on that scheme per every 1 they higher after the first 4 would be a good idea on private companies. Something similar should also be implemented on the public sector for cases where it is a "real" (and long term) job.

[Wednesday Bass]

This isn't new, for all you saying "typical Tories". Anecdotally, my brother had to do something like this in 2009, the Job Centre put him to work for 6 weeks at some little restaurant over the summer and got offered a job somewhere else from doing it.

[lightburns]

For people without any work experience, getting a job is not easy.

I think this scheme is a good thing, because if someone completes it then it shows that they are not work-shy. Getting onto a career can be very difficult if you didn't have a job through school. There is no way to distinguish the people with no experience but who are hard-working, and the people with no experience because they have avoided work at all costs.

In this way, it is very useful for people who had issues through school - my experience was some tough s* that made me an inch off suicide between the ages of 15-18; work was the least of my problems at that time. Now, I have managed to get a part-time job during my degree. But if I wasn't doing a degree and couldn't find a full-time job, I would have no way of showing that what was making me avoid work was temporary, and I am in fact reliable and hard-working. This scheme allows people to accumulate evidence that they are good workers, if given a chance.

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by Tahooper)
What, no "I think this is a great idea" option?

So do you think people are either against it or indifferent?

I assumed the 2nd option covered that, can't change it now anyway

[Tahooper]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
I assumed the 2nd option covered that, can't change it now anyway

Fair enough then.

[Genocidal]

The scheme was started in good faith, however it's too easy for these private companies to abuse it. So with this in mind I would have to say that the scheme should be abolished for private companies.

[Angry cucumber]

I think the premise of the scheme is good but rather than the taxpayer keep paying benefits these huge companies (e.g.Tesco's profits last year were in the billions) should pay them minimum wage or to the same value monetary wise of their benefits. It would be fairer as it would mean that people wouldn't be used by these companies as in effect slave labour.

[Classical Liberal]

These suffering people do not have a job because of things like the NMW. And if they were worth NMW then guess what, they would not be unemployed. Now we have an insane situation where people can work for free but not for £3.5/hour.

The scheme is a good idea in principle although I would prefer that we just get rid of the NMW and abolish JSA and replace it with a negative income tax.



The people calling this slave labour or whatever in public are trade unions. They are terrified they are going to be undercut

[Suzanathema]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
People who say these people who should be paid the NMW are ****ing idiots.

These people do not have a job because of things like the NMW. And if they were worth NMW then guess what, they would not be unemployed. Now we have an insane situation where people can work for free but not for £3.5/hour.

The scheme is a good idea in principle although I would prefer that we just get rid of the NMW and abolish JSA and replace it with a negative income tax.

The people calling this slave labour or whatever in public are trade unions. They are terrified they are going to be undercut

Would you work a 40 hour week at £3.50 per hour?