(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
won't the government just get un-elected if they have low unemployment for too long?
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Except there's no election going on and the figures are from an impartial organisation.
I don't know the ins and outs of how work placements work, but in theory it's illegal to fire someone simply to hire a cheaper replacement. Again, the fact that private sector employment is up (especially in low paid jobs where the bulk of work placements are) and the economy is growing would suggest that heaven forbid the government might have done their homework and prevented companies from simply laying off their workforce and getting jobseekers in as free replacements. Everything you say has been suggested here on TSR by doomsayers in the past yet no one has produced any evidence to support the theory and it remains nothing more than conjecture.
I have seen plenty of personal experiences. I could try going on a massive Google hunt to find them but I can't be arsed. People have certainly had their hours cut or worse to make way for the freebies.
It's illegal to sack people for no reason, or unfair reason, in certain circumstances
. It's all about proof and loopholes. If you hate black people and you've just been installed as manager of a Poundland shop, and you have a black employee, you can't sack him for being black.
You can, however, let him go as 'the role isn't for him' and reel off a list of miniscule grievances of things he's done incorrectly. Missed a bit of facing up on Monday, came back from break 3 minutes late on Tuesday, didn't ask customers if they wanted a bag on Wednesday on the till, didn't sweep the floor after closing on Thursday even though I never told him to, was seen standing around talking to a colleague on Friday for a minute.
You could make some of it up if you want. What's he gonna do, require proof?
Adding to that, many businesses like Poundland use the probation loophole and put all staff on permanent probation. It's actually their policy.
So that's that problem dealt with, the black guy is gone because he wasn't up to standard and was on probation. Since 2012, but probation nonetheless!
Have you been unemployed and applied for jobs? If you have, the following will be familiar:
"[You were unsuccessful because] other candidates had more relevant skills and experience"
This is said, word-for-word (almost as if they've been told exactly what to say and are copying and pasting it in all emails), to anyone asking for feedback on their rejection. This includes entry-level jobs where no experience is required or preferred, and training can and will be given, to an applicant with 5 years' experience in the role.
In theory, you could sue them, but in reality who's going to bother and where's the proof that discrimination is afoot?