Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Labour supporting Duncan Smith in defending slave work at Poundland Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I know community service -especially charity shop work is best
    Ok, that's something I can give more time to. The experience should be tailored to the individual needs of the jobseeker though, which, if the reports on the issue are correct, the current scheme is utterly inadequate at providing. I can say from experience that Jobcentre is currently woefully unequipped to deal with graduates, who, according to my observations, are only going to form a greater and greater proportion of the unemployed in the near future.

    Also, another point I forgot to make re: profit making companies: unless we're talking about the absolute least-skilled, least co-operative of the long- term unemployed, it will literally take about half an hour to train someone to be able to stack shelves to a minimum-wage level of skill, so it's completely bonkers to expect them to do it for free for several weeks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People seem to be forgetting that the majority of people on benefits are those who due to the economic downturn have been made redundant and are now struggling to get back into work. I work in a supermarket and the amount of CV's we receive everyday is unbelievable. PEOPLE WANT TO WORK! But there simply are no jobs.

    Say there is 1 vacancy, 150 people apply. That's 1 person off the statistics, 149 people that your all still having a go at for circumstances outside their control. People cannot go into imaginary jobs, create the jobs and people will gladly do them!

    As for the slave labour thing, I would definitely say that people should be paid the equivalent of minimum wage no matter what. If these companies have positions available for job-seekers, why not turn that position into a permanent job?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJoshwha)
    If you are on JSA for over a year, what other aspirations would you have?
    This is a fair point - too many people think that a degree entitles them to a career and therefore think that Poundland work is below them.
    Offline

    0
    A much higher proportion of jobseekers than you think have no previous experience. Those who are out of work due to redundancy are usually out for no more than 6 months. Many do not attend college/university. And many attend university to complete "falsely advertised degrees", that although sound promising and interesting, will likely never get you into a job.
    Basically, a large percentage of job seekers are graduates.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by breakeven)
    People seem to be forgetting that the majority of people on benefits are those who due to the economic downturn have been made redundant and are now struggling to get back into work. I work in a supermarket and the amount of CV's we receive everyday is unbelievable. PEOPLE WANT TO WORK! But there simply are no jobs.

    Say there is 1 vacancy, 150 people apply. That's 1 person off the statistics, 149 people that your all still having a go at for circumstances outside their control. People cannot go into imaginary jobs, create the jobs and people will gladly do them!

    As for the slave labour thing, I would definitely say that people should be paid the equivalent of minimum wage no matter what. If these companies have positions available for job-seekers, why not turn that position into a permanent job?
    Unemployment was high before the recession...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    This is a fair point - too many people think that a degree entitles them to a career and therefore think that Poundland work is below them.
    What do you base this assertion on? If a job pays a wage, people tend to apply for it, as can be seen by the huge number of applications already mentioned several times in the thread for supermarket jobs.

    You seem to be just wanting to say nasty things about the unemployed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noneofthemknew)
    Ok, that's something I can give more time to. The experience should be tailored to the individual needs of the jobseeker though, which, if the reports on the issue are correct, the current scheme is utterly inadequate at providing. I can say from experience that Jobcentre is currently woefully unequipped to deal with graduates, who, according to my observations, are only going to form a greater and greater proportion of the unemployed in the near future.

    Also, another point I forgot to make re: profit making companies: unless we're talking about the absolute least-skilled, least co-operative of the long- term unemployed, it will literally take about half an hour to train someone to be able to stack shelves to a minimum-wage level of skill, so it's completely bonkers to expect them to do it for free for several weeks.
    Hmm but I guess you need unemployed people to have structure so they don't get depressed and get used to waking up late on normal working days I guess
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    What do you base this assertion on? If a job pays a wage, people tend to apply for it, as can be seen by the huge number of applications already mentioned several times in the thread for supermarket jobs.

    You seem to be just wanting to say nasty things about the unemployed.
    You're missing my point entirely if that's what you think I want to do. I have only sympathy for people who are genuinely unable to find work, it's fairly slow of you to miss that. I'm basing my assertion on the attitudes of the thousands of students that I've spoken to and on past advice given to me by careers advisers. I don't blame the students, I blame the system for giving people such a sense of entitlement and making them think that university is the only way.

    Your statement makes no sense anyway. The fact that a job has many applicants does not necessarily prove that even one of those applicants is a student... If there's a statistic to prove your point then please provide it.
    Offline

    0
    Noneofthemknew: I hope you realise all you have done is insult retail workers. Have you ever worked in retail? You are actually insulting, you need to do free work experience for the same reason as the unemployed: for routine, and to join the real world.

    Edit: I deleted my last part, as it was just insulting and unnecessary, my apologies.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJoshwha)
    Noneofthemknew: I hope you realise all you have done is insult retail workers. Have you ever worked in retail? You are actually insulting, you need to do free work experience for the same reason as the unemployed: for routine, and to join the real world rather than your own "perfect" little easy one.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    He's done nothing of the sort. He's simply argued that some of these work placements are not equally beneficial. And the last bit was ignorant and unnecessary.
    Offline

    0
    True, it was unnecessary, but so was the remark made about "any simpleton learning to stack shelves in half an hour". A considerable amount of people work in retail and are happy, there is no need to talk down upon them. And the placements could not be made more beneficial. You need skills to do work experience somewhere deemed "useful" (somewhere outside of retail) and generally the people on JSA lack the skills, hence why they are on JSA in the first place.

    The post seems to have digressed from the original point though. I simply don't understand how doing a small amount of work experience for your JSA is a bad thing! Even if you gain no skills from it, at least you have been active for a while, and gives less of an incentive to live on benefits


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    So why not just create jobs? Pay people more money, they spend it, it kick starts the economy.
    "Ideally though, it would be better to just create jobs with a proper wage to give to the unemployed."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    You might lose benefits if you agree to a work placement and then drop out of it before it's scheduled end. You don't lose benefits for simply turning down an offer of a work placement. This has been cleared up, for some suspicious reason plenty of people seem to forget this clarification.
    Well I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with the fact that within DWP documents describing mandatory work activity, passages such as:

    "Participation on Mandatory Work Activity will be compulsory and customers who fail to participate will be sanctioned for 13 weeks. A second failure in a 12 month period will lead to a 26 week sanction."

    ..suggest otherwise.

    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-manda...k-activity.pdf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJoshwha)
    I think a lot of people here are missing a couple of points.

    1) You do max. 16 hours a week, and only for 1 month, yearly (or maybe 6 monthly).
    2) This means that taking into account annual earnings (from sitting on JSA) she is earning more than minimum wage.

    Therefore, she should have to work..
    The claim you've made above in bold is incorrect:

    "Customers will be required to participate in placements for up to 30 hours a week"

    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-manda...k-activity.pdf -article 9, page 3.

    In any case, welfare benefits are in no way intended as payment for labour completed on mandatory work schemes. They are designed as a safety net to provide provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens in order to prevent people falling into absolute poverty.

    (Original post by TheJoshwha)
    No-one should get free money, otherwise no-one would ever work.
    So a single mother of young children who is unable to attend a mandatory work scheme should not receive any benefit? You would have her and her children made homeless and put at risk of malnutrition/starvation, then? Even disregarding the social and human cost and speaking in in purely economic terms, such suggestions are utterly ludicrous.

    What do you think people would do when they could no longer survive via legitimate means? They would of course break the law to provide for themselves and their family. The increased crime rate would require vast resources to deal with; investigation, enforcement, legal costs and the increased prison population would cost the government countless millions. Not only this, but the children of single mothers, who would no longer be able to provide for them, would have to be taken into care which would cost more than providing the welfare would have, alone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJoshwha)
    Noneofthemknew: I hope you realise all you have done is insult retail workers. Have you ever worked in retail? You are actually insulting, you need to do free work experience for the same reason as the unemployed: for routine, and to join the real world.

    Edit: I deleted my last part, as it was just insulting and unnecessary, my apologies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're gonna have to elaborate on that statement because as far as I can seen what I've actually done is argue that people need to give up the pretense the we need to force people to work several weeks for free to gain experience that they are literally able to acquire in half an hour.

    For your infromation I've worked in nightclubs, funnily enough receiving a wage right off the bat.

    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm but I guess you need unemployed people to have structure so they don't get depressed and get used to waking up late on normal working days I guess
    True but this is not the point of the Jobcentre, it exists solely to get people back into work as quickly as possible. You can also give them structure by saying that they must spend a certain amount of time activitely searching and applying for jobs, which jobseekers are required to do as part of their jobseeking agreement anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    This is a fair point - too many people think that a degree entitles them to a career and therefore think that Poundland work is below them.
    And its bloody right they think that, you dont go and pay for a higher education for nothing now do you...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Unemployment was high before the recession...
    Yes, and there were barely any jobs then. More than there is now, but still few.

    Many people I know on benefits already do volunteer work because having nothing to do drives them crazy, they don't want to feel useless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=scrotgrot;41830176]Not at Poundland. Workfare should benefit the community. As it is it is Danegeld to the massive private companies who run the capitalist world.

    (The government pays a good whack of people's wages as it is with tax credits and housing benefit to top up the paltry minimum wage to something liveable.)[/QUOTE]

    Isn't that half the problem though?

    Why would an employer pay their employees more when they know that the government will top up their employees' wages for them?
    Offline

    0
    I have relatives who are single parents, my parents (one works for the DWP) combined actually do 90 hours a week, and I know two people who have been taking into to forced work scheme.

    Anyway, one point at a time. Single parents. Single parents, even without JSA, get a lot of money from tax credit and other benefits. The work only affects JSA, not your other benefits. As it was on the news a couple of weeks ago, a single mother was saying that she would not be able to survive when The Conservatives reduce benefits slightly, just after the introduction of Universal Credits.
    This woman was a single mother. And her benefits totalled to £615 per week. This means she gets benefits of £32,000 a year. This is A LOT of money. That averages that she is earning £15 per hour to NOT WORK.
    I understand some single parents cases, but the issue is our community. We need less young pregnancies, so people are more mature and it needs to be stressed the commitment that comes with it. We can't have men running off after 6 months because "a baby is too much for a 20 year old".

    Another example of a single parent. I know one whom has worked, actually doing 2 jobs with her kids from the age of 10 and 8. She worked whilst they were at school, and web she worked whilst they were at home, got someone to look after them. She done 40+ hours in a week, and was not rewarded at all, as someone who didn't work actually got MORE money per year. That isn't very good incentive to work?

    And onto the work placement. The two people I know who partook in them only had 16 hour week placements, and it was not a job too difficult. Both of these, after the work placement, realised that they need to actually do something. This was because they now had to work for their money, and because they had a routine of doing again. It is very easy to get in the slump of sleeping all day and wasting away your evening. One is now doing a nursing diploma (garunteed job at the end) and the either is doing a physics degree in hope of becoming a teacher.
    That being said, you shouldn't think you are "above" any job, at all. A degree in "advertising" or "air conditioning studies" doesn't mean you will get a garunteed job. If the jobs aren't out there, find something else or retail.

    The specific case of the woman who made the lawsuit. I completely agree with IDS. Yes, she had a work experience in the museum, but she had been there for months, there was clearly no job coming at the end of it. The DWP have to assign you somewhere to get you into work again. It is true that this experience would not be very beneficial, BUT employers will see that you have actually done something recently.
    If you think about it, at least the DWP made it clear about the hours and length and why you must do it. No one considers the museum slave labour, for not giving her any job after a pretty long time?

    The system pays you well to not really work too much. You can't really complain, that in worst case scenario (2 months of work per year. 30 hours per week), that they still get over 14 pound per hour for that work. A lot of people think that the companies are the issue for no jobs. YES, they are all part time jobs, which is stupid and to do with the companies. But, it just isn't that easy to "create new jobs".


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    I'm not sure if I made this point perfectly clear: the mandatory work is mostly a good way of getting people to actually work, because otherwise JSA is just too easy to simply sit on and not work

    Before anyone says anything, I would also like to add that YES, there are legitimate job seekers out there, who will take any job, and they often get a job quite quickly.
    The issue is how fussy the English public are. No one wants to work in a cafe for scraping minimum wage, or as a cleaner, but no one would mind working in a decent pay/benefits supermarket job.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.