Labour supporting Duncan Smith in defending slave work at Poundland
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Kibalchich
Yes, it is. Which is exactly my point.
I should say firstly, i'm actually against this because I don't think that the use of unemployment should be used to prop up the private sector. If poundland want workers, they should advertise for them themselves. The public sector should never prop up the private sector which is the case here.
However I'm for the general idea of this. You see it in countries like Germany and Norway. The general idea is that those that find themselves unemployed still contribute a bit to the state, doing smaller jobs which perhaps not justify full time work in order to retain their benefits, which is how it should be. They do this in Germany with the snow as far as i'm aware. In that those that are unemployed help clear the snow. How can anyone argue that this is a stupid idea? It's completely wrong that those that find themselves on benefits do nothing all day. There are plenty of jobs that they could do. Street sweeping, snow clearing etc, agriculture. While at the same time they could be looking for jobs.
Im completely for this, and I think some of you, especially, unsurpringly the OP have got a bee in your bonnet for no reason. I agree that they shouldn't work for private companies. However the notion that this is slave labour; if working for the state is completely wrong. In order to retain your benefits you should have to give something to society.
You're advocating a Keynesian job creation scheme?
Original post by ed-
'Slave work' hahaha what a joke 
slave labor
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats.
The mandatory work programme coerces people on benefits to work without pay or face the threat of losing their benefits; this fits the definition above precisely.
Original post by Futility
slave labor
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats.
The mandatory work programme coerces people on benefits to work without pay or face the threat of losing their benefits; this fits the definition above precisely.
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats.
The mandatory work programme coerces people on benefits to work without pay or face the threat of losing their benefits; this fits the definition above precisely.
By that logic you could argue that any form of labour is slavery since if you cease to work then you stop being paid, therefore being under duress - people in this specific instance can just refuse to work. Whilst I don't agree with the fact that people are having to work in Poundland in particular, it's clearly not slave labour.
Original post by venenecinema
By that logic you could argue that any form of labour is slavery since if you cease to work then you stop being paid, therefore being under duress - people in this specific instance can just refuse to work. Whilst I don't agree with the fact that people are having to work in Poundland in particular, it's clearly not slave labour.
No employer legally threatens people in order to coerce them into paid employment in this country. People choose to exchange their time, labour and skills for financial reward, this is plainly not the same as being forced into unpaid work by the threat of losing benefits.
I've demonstrated that the mandatory work programme fits the definition of slave labour, so that you've come to the conclusion that it's "clearly not slave labour" is somewhat bemusing.
Original post by Futility
No employer legally threatens people in order to coerce them into paid employment in this country. People choose to exchange their time, labour and skills for financial reward, this is plainly not the same as being forced into unpaid work by the threat of losing benefits.
I've demonstrated that the mandatory work programme fits the definition of slave labour, so that you've come to the conclusion that it's "clearly not slave labour" is somewhat bemusing.
I've demonstrated that the mandatory work programme fits the definition of slave labour, so that you've come to the conclusion that it's "clearly not slave labour" is somewhat bemusing.
Except the work isn't unpaid if you're receiving benefits, and people aren't being forced to do anything. You haven't demonstrated that, you've provided a definition and twisted what's happening to fit with it.
The policy was flawed to begin with. It could open the way for business to exploit cheap labour on the tax payer's expense, instead of hiring its own minimum-wage staff.
Current Labour seems to have a habit of opposing the Coalition on everything, usually out of a facile rhetoric. Why break the trend when they actually had a justification for once?
Current Labour seems to have a habit of opposing the Coalition on everything, usually out of a facile rhetoric. Why break the trend when they actually had a justification for once?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by venenecinema
By that logic you could argue that any form of labour is slavery since if you cease to work then you stop being paid, therefore being under duress - people in this specific instance can just refuse to work. Whilst I don't agree with the fact that people are having to work in Poundland in particular, it's clearly not slave labour.
Beat me to it
Original post by Kibalchich
So you think putting other people out of work by getting unemployed people to do their jobs is going to help unemployment?
Run that by me again?
Run that by me again?
No, the opposite. When handing jobfare jobs to the private sector, you get that problem. Because you're forcing people to do jobs which normally would be paid.
Whereas if the jobs you force people to do were jobs that were either volunteer jobs, or projects that would no get done anyway, you don't have that problem. What's more, you would be able to get them involved in projects where they would be able to get vital experience. Ideally though, it would be better to just create jobs with a proper wage to give to the unemployed.
Original post by Futility
slave labor
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats.
The mandatory work programme coerces people on benefits to work without pay or face the threat of losing their benefits; this fits the definition above precisely.
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats.
The mandatory work programme coerces people on benefits to work without pay or face the threat of losing their benefits; this fits the definition above precisely.
Poundland and the other £/99p stores are already used to the concept of slave labour. Nearly everything they sell is imported from China and there is extensive evidence that it comes from factories with dismal pay and human conditions. Even worse, some of their goods are probably manufactured in labour camps, where political prisoners toil. These are people who tweeted about a pollution incident or demanded the right to be able to watch a Western DVD.
Original post by venenecinema
Except the work isn't unpaid if you're receiving benefit
Welfare benefits are not 'payment' for labour completed on the mandatory work schemes, they are the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens who would otherwise find themselves living in poverty.
If benefits were payment for labour completed on work schemes it should be subject to the minimum wage i.e. £6.19 per hour. In which case somebody working 25 hours per week on the mandatory work scheme should be receiving £154.75 a week, not £71.00 (which would obviously more than double government spending on welfare).
Original post by venenecinema
You haven't demonstrated that, you've provided a definition and twisted what's happening to fit with it.
I haven't twisted anything. I've given..
1.) a definition of slave labour:
"slave labor
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats."
And
2.) a description of the mandatory work programme:
The coercion of citizens on benefits to complete unpaid labour or face the threat of losing their benefits.
The second of which is an accurate, if partial, description of what occurs and is self-evidently consistent with the definition given in the former.
Original post by Futility
Welfare benefits are not 'payment' for labour completed on the mandatory work schemes, they are the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens who would otherwise find themselves living in poverty.
If benefits were payment for labour completed on work schemes it should be subject to the minimum wage i.e. £6.19 per hour. In which case somebody working 25 hours per week on the mandatory work scheme should be receiving £154.75 a week, not £71.00 (which would obviously more than double government spending on welfare).
I haven't twisted anything. I've given..
1.) a definition of slave labour:
"slave labor
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats."
And
2.) a description of the mandatory work programme:
The coercion of citizens on benefits to complete unpaid labour or face the threat of losing their benefits.
The second of which is an accurate, if partial, description of what occurs and is self-evidently consistent with the definition given in the former.
If benefits were payment for labour completed on work schemes it should be subject to the minimum wage i.e. £6.19 per hour. In which case somebody working 25 hours per week on the mandatory work scheme should be receiving £154.75 a week, not £71.00 (which would obviously more than double government spending on welfare).
I haven't twisted anything. I've given..
1.) a definition of slave labour:
"slave labor
noun
1.
persons, especially a large group, performing labor under duress or threats."
And
2.) a description of the mandatory work programme:
The coercion of citizens on benefits to complete unpaid labour or face the threat of losing their benefits.
The second of which is an accurate, if partial, description of what occurs and is self-evidently consistent with the definition given in the former.
That definition that you've found is absolutely terrible and, as I've said, can be applied to any form of labour whatsoever. An employer can say "If you don't do X then I'll fire you".
The problem lies with your misunderstanding of not only what slave labour is, but what the scheme actually involves. High court judges concluded that this isn't slave labour, as the scheme was never actually mandatory in the first place. Regardless of whether or not it's a poor, unfair or badly paid scheme, it's not slave labour as nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by venenecinema
That definition that you've found is absolutely terrible and, as I've said, can be applied to any form of labour whatsoever. An employer can say "If you don't do X then I'll fire you".
The problem lies with your misunderstanding of not only what slave labour is, but what the scheme actually involves. High court judges concluded that this isn't slave labour, as the scheme was never actually mandatory in the first place. Regardless of whether or not it's a poor, unfair or badly paid scheme, it's not slave labour as nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
The problem lies with your misunderstanding of not only what slave labour is, but what the scheme actually involves. High court judges concluded that this isn't slave labour, as the scheme was never actually mandatory in the first place. Regardless of whether or not it's a poor, unfair or badly paid scheme, it's not slave labour as nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
Thousands of claimants were assured it was mandatory and that they would lose their benefits if they didn't get themselves down to Poundland and the like and start stackin'.
Seems to me there's not much difference between being tricked into slavery and actual legal slavery.
These schemes were strongly supported by the pound shops, who as I have explained, are heavily invested in slave labour conditions in China - they were seeking to open the door to China-style working here in the UK. It isn't at all surprising that this development is taking place - some top politicians and business people have previously called for Britain to become more like China in labour conditions, eg, a zero-rights and effectively zero-pay environment.
Where I come from, we call that slavery.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Thousands of claimants were assured it was mandatory and that they would lose their benefits if they didn't get themselves down to Poundland and the like and start stackin'.
Seems to me there's not much difference between being tricked into slavery and actual legal slavery.
These schemes were strongly supported by the pound shops, who as I have explained, are heavily invested in slave labour conditions in China - they were seeking to open the door to China-style working here in the UK. It isn't at all surprising that this development is taking place - some top politicians and business people have previously called for Britain to become more like China in labour conditions, eg, a zero-rights and effectively zero-pay environment.
Where I come from, we call that slavery.
Seems to me there's not much difference between being tricked into slavery and actual legal slavery.
These schemes were strongly supported by the pound shops, who as I have explained, are heavily invested in slave labour conditions in China - they were seeking to open the door to China-style working here in the UK. It isn't at all surprising that this development is taking place - some top politicians and business people have previously called for Britain to become more like China in labour conditions, eg, a zero-rights and effectively zero-pay environment.
Where I come from, we call that slavery.
I've said before, I don't agree with the fact that they were forced to work for private businesses, nor do I agree with the government's methods; I'm simply stating the fact that under LAW it's not slave labour. Any other definition is largely irrelevant since the term is so subjective.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Well, this is shabby and disgraceful. Labour are to support emergency legislation early next week to enable Ian Duncan Smith to rush through a bill which prevents the DWP from having to pay minimum wage or compensation to the thousands of people who were forced to work at Poundland and other stores or have their benefit stopped.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland
The bill is the worst kind of retrospective legislation.
This relates to the case won a month ago by former Birmingham University student Cait Reilly, who was instructed to work at Poundland doing shelf stacking for no pay or lose benefits.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2257547
That opened the way for law centres and poverty campaigners to sue the DWP for re-imbursement of benefits to those who had them stopped and payment of national minimum wage.
People sent to work should be paid at least the NMW. I hope this now goes all the way to Europe, but it is absolutely disgusting that Milliband is supporting this legislation, which basically says that young people on JSA are worthless and their rights should be ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland
The bill is the worst kind of retrospective legislation.
This relates to the case won a month ago by former Birmingham University student Cait Reilly, who was instructed to work at Poundland doing shelf stacking for no pay or lose benefits.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2257547
That opened the way for law centres and poverty campaigners to sue the DWP for re-imbursement of benefits to those who had them stopped and payment of national minimum wage.
People sent to work should be paid at least the NMW. I hope this now goes all the way to Europe, but it is absolutely disgusting that Milliband is supporting this legislation, which basically says that young people on JSA are worthless and their rights should be ignored.
Slave work? Whatever you might think of it it's not slave work for ****s sake.
Original post by venenecinema
The problem lies with your misunderstanding of not only what slave labour is, but what the scheme actually involves. High court judges concluded that this isn't slave labour, as the scheme was never actually mandatory in the first place. Regardless of whether or not it's a poor, unfair or badly paid scheme, it's not slave labour as nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
My misunderstanding? This is somewhat droll considering that you were ostensibly unaware of what welfare actually was, 'payment' for work schemes indeed.
High court judges have ruled that the DWP work schemes are illegal and that claimants had been "unlawfully made to work unpaid for organisations because the DWP had not given jobseekers enough legal information about what they were being made to do." Which is what all this deplorable talk of retrospective legislation is all about.
Original post by Futility
My misunderstanding? This is somewhat droll considering that you were ostensibly unaware of what welfare actually was, 'payment' for work schemes indeed.
High court judges have ruled that the DWP work schemes are illegal and that claimants had been "unlawfully made to work unpaid for organisations because the DWP had not given jobseekers enough legal information about what they were being made to do." Which is what all this deplorable talk of retrospective legislation is all about.
High court judges have ruled that the DWP work schemes are illegal and that claimants had been "unlawfully made to work unpaid for organisations because the DWP had not given jobseekers enough legal information about what they were being made to do." Which is what all this deplorable talk of retrospective legislation is all about.
I'm well aware of what welfare is, and in this instance it has become payment for otherwise unpaid work. Regardless of whether or not it's unlawful; it's not slave labour, which was my original point(which you've failed to address above, I might add). Calling it 'Slave labour' is merely a way of sensationalising a genuine problem.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by venenecinema
which was my original point(which you've failed to address above, I might add).
I've addressed it several times. But let's try again shall we:
In the cases of Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, their lawyers claimed that "Mandatory unpaid government work schemes that last up to six months should be declared illegal because they are a form of forced labour." and further that they were "illegally forced to take part in government work experience schemes, without pay and under the "menace of penalty" of losing their benefits." They described the work schemes as "a form of forced labour which breached article four of the European convention on human rights."
They have since won their cases, with the respective judges evidently agreeing that they had been coerced into forced, unpaid labour and that this thus constituted a breach of their human rights.
Original post by Futility
I've addressed it several times. But let's try again shall we:
In the cases of Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, their lawyers claimed that "Mandatory unpaid government work schemes that last up to six months should be declared illegal because they are a form of forced labour." and further that they were illegally forced to take part in government work experience schemes, without pay and under the "menace of penalty" of losing their benefits." They described the work schemes as "a form of forced labour which breached article four of the European convention on human rights."
They have since won their cases, with the respective judges evidently agreeing that they had been coerced into forced, unpaid labour and that this thus constituted a breach of their human rights.
In the cases of Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, their lawyers claimed that "Mandatory unpaid government work schemes that last up to six months should be declared illegal because they are a form of forced labour." and further that they were illegally forced to take part in government work experience schemes, without pay and under the "menace of penalty" of losing their benefits." They described the work schemes as "a form of forced labour which breached article four of the European convention on human rights."
They have since won their cases, with the respective judges evidently agreeing that they had been coerced into forced, unpaid labour and that this thus constituted a breach of their human rights.
Again, illegal but not slavery. My point was the use of the word 'slavery', which you seem to have again missed.
Original post by venenecinema
Again, illegal but not slavery. My point was the use of the word 'slavery', which you seem to have again missed.
Illegal on the grounds that the schemes were "a form of forced, unpaid labour" which is tantamount to 'slave labour' according to the dictionary defintion.
I never used the word "slavery".
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Help! I'm struggling :( (moot presentation)
- Inspector calls predictions?/ tips 2023
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- Can someone help me analyse this quote from Macbeth?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Macbeth practice
- PLEASE HELP❗️❗️What would this GCSE AQA inspector calls answer get out of 30?
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Can someone please mark this out of 30(all my teachers refused)
- Mr birling essay PLEASE MARK
- cause of Macbeth's ambition, leading to downfall
- Can someone mark my essay, please I beg
- Why do people constantly hate people with degrees ?
- How does Priestley use the character of the Inspector to suggest ways that society co
- Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)
- Harvard in-text-citations - is this correct?
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- An Inspector Calls: Eric Essay
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
Latest
Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 22 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadPosted 50 minutes ago
Unit 3 Health and Social Care retake OCRLast reply 55 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadPosted 1 hour ago
Failed 2 out of 3 exams semester 1 and scared about the 3 I have left in semester 2.Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
Last reply 3 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 18 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 21 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 18 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 21 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
