Labour supporting Duncan Smith in defending slave work at Poundland

Like I said before, I know people that it has worked for. Not saying it will for everyone, but it helped. Maybe they need to be more regulated making sure people get training, but honestly, retail training isn't that bad. Someone needs to work in retail after all. If EVERYBODY had training or a degree, then someone who has professional training will have to go into retail jobs.

Also, it is a little bit harsh to all poundland a "****hole". A lot of people's whole careers are around jobs like that. It's just people trying to make a living :smile:

Reply 181

arichmond64

1

These schemes are simply catch-22!!

Poundland, Tesco etc. get people to work for free, which means they are not paying for real employees, which means that people have to go on the dole, which means that these people do free work, which means they are not paying people for real work............................

Pretty obvious to any sane person, that they should be getting people to do community jobs, where no fat cats at the top of the pyramid rakes in the tax payers money. This may also motivate people to actually go and get a job.......... at poundland, tesco etc. for real pay.

Reply 182

TheJoshwha

Companies have to sign agreements to consider people they take on for real roles, and are not allowed to get rid of employees for "free employees". Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it actually costs the company more than they get to take them on

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 183

arichmond64

1

Original post by TheJoshwha

Companies have to sign agreements to consider people they take on for real roles, and are not allowed to get rid of employees for "free employees". Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it actually costs the company more than they get to take them on

Posted from TSR Mobile

"consider"
After 6 months aswell?

You really think these companys are in it for the good of the country? :s-smilie:

Reply 184

TheJoshwha

They are in it to help out the government. I imagine there must be some benefit to being on the governments "good side". But big companies aren't the devil. They boost the economy and employ a lot of people, just make a lot of money on the way :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 185

arichmond64

1

The best thing about it is it should work as a deterrent for people who will never take a job.

Reply 186

TheJoshwha

100% agreed! :smile:

I tried to make that point earlier but it sort of got lost in the mix :')

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 187

n00

14

oops

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 188

gateshipone

10

Original post by TheJoshwha

Companies have to sign agreements to consider people they take on for real roles, and are not allowed to get rid of employees for "free employees". Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it actually costs the company more than they get to take them on

Posted from TSR Mobile

It is pretty expensive. Not only do they have to have insurance policies that cover people who are not employees or customers in store, they also loose a hell of a lot in man hours as for every person they take on, an actual employee has to stop doing their job and get the newbie up to speed which is a drain on man-hours.

Reply 189

scrotgrot

16

Original post by gateshipone

It is pretty expensive. Not only do they have to have insurance policies that cover people who are not employees or customers in store, they also loose a hell of a lot in man hours as for every person they take on, an actual employee has to stop doing their job and get the newbie up to speed which is a drain on man-hours.

Which is why chain retailers are the only ones for whom it's profitable (they will prob get lower premiums than Jeff's Home o' Widgets down the road, and have more staff to cover.)

The government needs to be committed to underwriting the extra costs of a charity, non-profit or small business doing it. (I would in fact accept a limited range of small for-profit businesses taking advantage of the scheme, subject to stringent conditions including the jobseeker getting to choose where he goes.

Reply 190

Kibalchich

Original post by TheJoshwha

Like I said before, I know people that it has worked for. Not saying it will for everyone, but it helped. Maybe they need to be more regulated making sure people get training, but honestly, retail training isn't that bad. Someone needs to work in retail after all. If EVERYBODY had training or a degree, then someone who has professional training will have to go into retail jobs.

Also, it is a little bit harsh to all poundland a "****hole". A lot of people's whole careers are around jobs like that. It's just people trying to make a living :smile:

Workfare is not retail training.

Back in the day, when I were a lad, people got trained on the job and got paid for it.

Reply 191

Kibalchich

Original post by TheJoshwha

Companies have to sign agreements to consider people they take on for real roles, and are not allowed to get rid of employees for "free employees". Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it actually costs the company more than they get to take them on

Posted from TSR Mobile

Are you really that naive?

Reply 192

Kibalchich

Original post by TheJoshwha

They are in it to help out the government. I imagine there must be some benefit to being on the governments "good side". But big companies aren't the devil. They boost the economy and employ a lot of people, just make a lot of money on the way :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh. You are.

Reply 193

TheJoshwha

Yes, but who would want to pay someone who hasn't had any work whatsoever for 2 years and next to know experience, when someone who has just been made redundant, and has 20 years experience wants the same pay? We can't pay everyone and benefits even more to be trained, because then either taxes will rocket up, or somewhere else would have to lose funding

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 194

Kibalchich

Original post by gateshipone

It is pretty expensive. Not only do they have to have insurance policies that cover people who are not employees or customers in store, they also loose a hell of a lot in man hours as for every person they take on, an actual employee has to stop doing their job and get the newbie up to speed which is a drain on man-hours.

Public liability would cover it, they already have that. They save on wages, NI, interviewing, HR costs, advertising vacancies. To say it costs them money is daft.

Reply 195

gateshipone

10

Original post by Kibalchich

Public liability would cover it, they already have that. They save on wages, NI, interviewing, HR costs, advertising vacancies. To say it costs them money is daft.