General Chat

I always have my radio on in the background and I regularly I listen to the discussions on a local chat show.

This morning they were discussing these work schemes and it was very interesting, especially when you look at how these schemes are being exploited.

It appears that several very well known retail organisations are cutting the hours of their paid employees and taking on people as free labour through these schemes to cover the hours they cut from their paid employees.

One of the aims of the Governments benefit reforms is to slash the amount of what they call the "Benefit Bill" so have I got this right?

We pay private companies to place unemployed people with organisations who are making millions of pounds every year in profits and they in turn cut the hours of their paid employees and use free labour to cover those hours. What that says to me is that the paid employees will earn less and therefore pay less income tax and in some cases their income may fall to a level where they would be entitled to some welfare benefits.

I think the Education Secretary should make every single minister and official in the Department for Work and Pension take a course in basic arithmetic as I can only see two beneficiaries from this flawed policy, and it is not the taxpayer or the unemployed, it is the organisations who are paid to implement these schemes and the organisations that use the free labour :-S

People moan about tax payers paying the unemployed, but seem quite willing to fund firms - who get paid to employ the unemployed person, and then don't have to pay them!!
If the unemployed weren't slaving away for free for the likes of Poundland, they'd have to EMPLOY someone.
Therefore, firms are being paid TWICE by the tax payer to, basically ensure there isn't a job available for the unemployed,

Yea, well thought through, Cameron's crew

Working in Poundland is hardly learning a 'trade' - whereas the YTS and TOPS schemes actually taught a trade.

Jack Jazz posted on 12 February 2013 3:52pm
Recommend
103

@Lindsay Murphy -

sorry Im new to this but what does 'IDS' stand for?

Irritable Dickhead Syndrome!

:-D :-D :-D

I did a YTS when I left school...during a time of very high youth unemployment during the 80s...yes the pay was poor but it gave me a CV and showed that I had a work etchic that put me in good stead in later years.

At the time I remember being most unimpressed at being *made to work for peanuts* but as my parents told me at the time......if you don't work....good luck in your new home lol..and now looking back I can see they were right...in principle yes I suppose you could argue it was slave labour...in reality it did me no harm whatsoever.

People didn't use to agree with the YTS scheme. I was responsible for co-ordinating it when in Civilian personnel for RAF MOD. We had a lot through our books most were ok some, as Sue says as with work experience didn't quite 'get it' and didn't turn up, were late, didn't work etc. Those who were good were invariably invited to apply when jobs came up and the best ones were employed. We knew they would work.

Carol, as Errol says people in full time work claim housing benefit, in fact 60% of benefit claimants are in low paid work according to officials

Roy

It's rather like having school children in their work experience week being sent to a placement that bears absolutely no similarity to their job expectations.

Had a few of those over the years and although some were fantastic (and I paid them at the end of their week) others would either not turn up or watch the clock all day.

AnninGlos,

You have a grandson to be very proud of, I wish him well and hope that sooner rather than later he will find a suitable career and one in which he can put his degree to good use :-)

Housing Benefit is a seperate issue because it is paid to people on low incomes rather than the unemployed - if you see the distinction.

Work experience is one thing and I think it is commendable in this instance that the person in question willingly carried out voluntary work. In fact, many unemployed people do just that. But "forced" work experience is not the way forward. Instead of pushing people into unsuitable work, look at the pre-existing skillset and tap into that. Making people do a job that they have no interest or experience in (particularly older people) merely results in an utterly disengaged workforce.

Sadly, governments of all shades have tended to make policies on the hoof and many people suffer as a result.

But there again, and I admit to being a cynic, not everyone suffers as many benefit from such polices, mainly those who are paid to implement them ;-)

Roy it has not been stated whether or not she was claiming housing benefit etc, hence me saying 'probably'.

It is a pity this was not thought through more, as an incentive to go and do some work/any work when drawing benefit is good. However, in this case she was doing voluntary work in the area in which she was qualified and searching for jobs. That should have been seen as fulfilling the terms of the scheme. Not knowing others' problems, experiences with the scheme I can't comment.

My Grandson who has a degree has tried and failed to get a job in his particular sphere and has been working since leaving uni as a pizza delivery driver. A very lowly job, yet he is earning money and paying his way and gaining experience of working in a team, handling money and sometimes even balancing the day's takings now he has been there 2 years. One day he and we hope this will stand him in good stead.

But like Muffy, in a wider context I am a don't know.

I totally agree with any initiative to encourage people into work, however we abolished slavery in the 1800's and I do not believe that these schemes which make people work for free is the way to do encourage them.

In my book this is nothing but cheap labour, I would go as far as to say forced labour as a threat is present if they refuse.

By all means make it a condition that if a person who is in good health refuses to take a job which is one they are capable of doing, then unless there are extenuating circumstances, they will lose their benefits.

However, they must at least be paid what is called a "Living Wage" a wage which is enough to cover what they need to be able to provide their family with the basic daily essentials of life.

Our Government's past and present are always very quick to level criticism at other countries for using cheap labour.

Agrees with PigletsPal.

DWP do not have a clue how to appy this scheme appropriately.

In fact DWP do not have a clue about most aspects of the job market in 2013.

Carol, "Government were paying her & probably more than basic wage for the amount of hours she was doing. (not just JSA )"

Where is the relevant info "source" to qualify your statement

The only people who get extra benefit on the back-to-work schemes to my knowledge are those with disabilities

Roy

D's perspective, it's a really good idea to take on a job that isn't in your field of expertise rather than be on the dole, because it will give you experience working with and for people and show you're willing to work BUT that job should at least pay the same rate as an apprenticeship job ( which I think is about £2.50 for his age group? or minimum wage for older person)..

Also, my opinion , if someone IS doing voluntary work in the career they have just qualified in ( eg an architect working on building a community project,) to gain practical experience in that area to add to their CV WHILE they are actively looking for a permanent post, that seems fair ( for a limited period).

The 'work' she was doing related to the degree she had taken - what relevance would working in Poundland or any of the other places where this scheme was operating have had.

If she was a lazy, stay at home, do not want to work type of person then yes she should have been forced to take the job at Poundland, but she was not.

This is a case where the 'one size fits all' does not work

Can see both sides of this tbh.

I suppose if i put my *mum* hat on I'd want my daughters to be seen to be trying to work and gain experience that may give them a better chance of a job...any job, even unpaid to start with, so they get a foot on the ladder...establishing a work ethic early on is vital I feel....ok this girl was already doing voluntary work already but I'm guessing that's rarely the case....I'm a *don't know* on this one when I look at the bigger picture though.

Looking at this from another perspective, why should the tax payer s money be used to allow her to ‘play’ in the Museum? She was not ‘unpaid’ the Government were paying her & probably more than basic wage for the amount of hours she was doing. (not just JSA )
Experience in the work place wherever or whatever it may be is just that. It would not hurt for many senior work professionals to spend some time at the lowers levels to get a true idea of what it is like.
If asked at a future interview what you had been doing since your last job/education, it is surely better to be able to say that you took any job you could get whilst looking for one that used the qualifications you had.
You can be sure that no-one actually says “I looked in the papers, on line & in the job centre to see what jobs where going, then went down the pub with my mates, watched daytime tv & chatted/played on Facebook”.
IMHO the Department for Work and Pensions had the right idea but had not worked on it thoroughly enough before implementing it.

Business is already heavily subsidised at the tax payers expense,

Its called working Tax credits

Roy