[segoviawoods]

Who benefits - the businesses. If businesses have work that needs doing, they'd better damn well pay people!

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Isn't it said that the workfare scheme can be 30 hours a week? Therefore they wouldn't get job seekers? The Job Centre seems to have discretion on this matter and won't remove benefits if you are still applying for jobs alongside the work experience.

I was responding to your comment about "normal work experience". I assumed that you were not referring to the workfare scheme.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
That's odd. 4/5 years ago I was claiming JSA whilst working part-time and I was told that if I worked any more than 16 hours per week I wouldn't be able to claim it anymore.
So, is it true then that a person could go on benefits whilst being an unpaid intern? I'm sure that can't be right, with all the claims about them stifling social mobility...

That is true. About the same time as you, I was also working under 16 hours and claiming JSA; I had to fill out time sheets every week. Then in 2006 (maybe a little later) they decided to scrap it. Consequently, I don't take part time jobs anymore. Unless I can find two or more part time jobs, it aint worth the financial hassle, although it might be worth the work experience. My welfare is more important than pleasing the Job Centre though.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
I was responding to your comment about "normal work experience". I assumed that you were not referring to the workfare scheme.

Even if that is true, say that you are 18 and living at home still. You get an offer of work experience for 1 working week in a months time. Say out of the £50 odd you save £40 a week whilst also looking for jobs. You then have over £30 a day for travel and lunch on placement. This is also assuming that you don't get any help off parents in travel arrangements.

That is for mid-sized local firms. Top firms pay their interns (top law firms around £250 pw) as well as sometimes giving you 3 months notice, allowing you to save up much more.

What I mean is that there is always the opportunity for low-income people to do work placements. Yes, they may be limited to one a month, but the cases where people get high-ranking internships more regularly than that are few.

[Mufasaa]

(Original post by ForKicks)
It's not forced though, it is voluntary.

Secret tip on how to avoid this 'slave labour': When they ask if you want to do it, say no.

"I got 2 sanctions by the jobcentre in Sep. The 2nd one was for not choosing a voluntary work placement. This week they told me that because of this I had been referred to a co. who would find me 4 weeks work and that this was mandatory, if I refused then I would have all benefits stopped for 6 months. 4 weeks unpaid work, that is." https://twitter.com/#!/sebcapes

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Even if that is true, say that you are 18 and living at home still. You get an offer of work experience for 1 working week in a months time. Say out of the £50 odd you save £40 a week whilst also looking for jobs. You then have over £30 a day for travel and lunch on placement. This is also assuming that you don't get any help off parents in travel arrangements.

That is for mid-sized local firms. Top firms pay their interns (top law firms around £250 pw) as well as sometimes giving you 3 months notice, allowing you to save up much more.

What I mean is that there is always the opportunity for low-income people to do work placements. Yes, they may be limited to one a month, but the cases where people get high-ranking internships more regularly than that are few.

This all assumes you have no financial commitments whatsoever and can travel to the offices of said company. Why is it reasonable to assume that? Also, what do you mean about 'giving you 3 months notice'? Do you mean you have 3 months notice in your contract? That's very much a double-edged sword.

[ChemistBoy]

PS Cameron and the rest of the Tory front bench really do themselves no favours using such hyperbolic and outdated language. Nevermind the fact that they are totally wrong, exactly what is Trotskyite about demanding payment for provision of your labour? That's a key part of capitalism - we are all part of the market.

[NietzschanGuy]

I don't know, it's hardly the dumbest thing he's ever said. I mean it -is- monstrously stupid, but this is the same man who doesn't want healthcare professionals involved in the debate on healthcare reform. If we're looking for standards on good sense, this aint it Jimbo.

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by Hobo389)
That is why there are limits for each person of 4 or 8 weeks. You draw the line at these, the government are in a contractual agreement with the companies, they are very tightly controlled that require. It does not simply allow for unpaid work for that is funded by the taxpayer. No government is stupid enough to simply allow companies to take advantage, the whole scheme is very tightly controlled by the government.

Dear Citizen,

There is no need for alarm. The government is in control and knows exactly what it is doing.

Remember trust the government.

The Government.

Yes, the scheme is so tightly controlled that the wrong people have been put on it and the Job Centre is apparently (we are led to believe) removing people's benefits through sanctions when they reject the opportunity to go on this voluntary scheme even though that apparently isn't supposed to be happening.

Forgive me if I don't trust the Government any further than I can throw them.

[Hobo389]

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Dear Citizen,

There is no need for alarm. The government is in control and knows exactly what it is doing.

Remember trust the government.

The Government.

Yes, the scheme is so tightly controlled that the wrong people have been put on it and the Job Centre is apparently (we are led to believe) removing people's benefits through sanctions when they reject the opportunity to go on this voluntary scheme even though that apparently isn't supposed to be happening.

Forgive me if I don't trust the Government any further than I can throw them.

I heartily agree, I do not trust government in its manifest, let alone its bureaucracy. The contracts are watertight, it is the enforcers that are useless.


“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
― Oscar Wilde

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by NietzschanGuy)
I don't know, it's hardly the dumbest thing he's ever said. I mean it -is- monstrously stupid, but this is the same man who doesn't want healthcare professionals involved in the debate on healthcare reform. If we're looking for standards on good sense, this aint it Jimbo.

That's a little unfair on Cameron. He does want healthcare professionals involved in the debate on NHS reform as long as they agree with him.

[Classical Liberal]

I think he subtley saying Trade Union representatives equate to Trotskyists.

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by Hobo389)
I heartily agree, I do not trust government in its manifest, let alone its bureaucracy. The contracts are watertight, it is the enforcers that are useless.


“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
― Oscar Wilde

A contract is a lot of paper sat in an office, the only thing that matters is how it is applied in the real world.

I do not accept a seperation between the Government at the machines of state. The Minister is responsible for ensuring that his schemes are put into place correctly and if they are not, he is responsible for the outcomes.

[from rush hour with love]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I think he subtley saying Trade Union representatives equate to Trotskyists.

I'm far from a trade unionist, yet I think the work experience scheme is a disgrace. It's unpaid labour, how can that be justified?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by from rush hour with love)
I'm far from a trade unionist, yet I think the work experience scheme is a disgrace. It's unpaid labour, how can that be justified?

Just because of the absence of currency changing hands does not mean there was no payment. As long as association is free both parties benefit.

'Knowledge is power'.....

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I think he subtley saying Trade Union representatives equate to Trotskyists.

I'm quite sure a good proportion of them actually were in their younger days, as such, water of a duck's back.

For me at least, it appears that the Tory front bench are trying to evoke a 1980's bogey man. Has no-one told them that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

What group of complete nutjobs are they trying to impress with this rhetoric? Are the Tory party faithful really a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing survivalists waiting for the great Commintern conspiracy to show itself?

[DisconcertingWink1]

*Trotskyists

[Maker]

(Original post by non)
simple if there was a wage cap on internship less companies would run them and there would be more unemployment and internships are so competitive that there is no need to have a wage cap and decrease the number that are being offered by companies. you don't have to go on any of these 'voluntery' schemes it's the consumers choice.

If intern-ships had to be paid at least the minimum wage, companies will have no choice but to pay them.

If they did not, then no-one will gain the experience that the companies need and they will have to increase wages to chase a diminishing number of people with relevant experience.

[Maker]

(Original post by Hobo389)
There has been no solution in the past for youth unemployment. You cannot persuade a private company, no matter how big and close to government, to fund a scheme such as this, they simply will not trust without experience that said youth will be up to standard. Surely it is the role of government to tackle this problem through the private sector. The new amendment by Tesco takes on this for 4 weeks subsidised by the taxpayer, and then if they meet a satisfactory standard will employ those that enrol, though it is only one so far to take up this option, I would like to see them all do it. So far this scheme has led to 50% of participants to be in a job within a month of it, is that not progress? It is certainly the most effective scheme seen in a long while to tackle youth unemployment.

I've had a number of jobs where I had no previous experience in it like fast food, medical research, IT advisor but I got paid from day 1.

Why should employers get free labour until they deem the people they hire have gained sufficient experience? If they can't tell if someone with no experience will be up to the job, they need to improve their recruitment procedures because that is what they have to do all the time such as with graduate trainees.

[from rush hour with love]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Just because of the absence of currency changing hands does not mean there was no payment. As long as association is free both parties benefit.

'Knowledge is power'.....

Oh FFS it's another libertarian crackhead with a negative perception of freedom.
Let's be honest, if you weren't very intelligent, and from a poor family, would you be pissed off if you went to work and received no money in return?
Don't lie and say you wouldn't be.