General Chat

Porkie Pie I totally agree with you about these companies using this as free labour - they get the staff and do not have to pay. If they have so many of these 'free' jobs advertise them and then employ and pay someone to do the job.

We are getting closer and closer to the old Victorian workhouse mentality in this goverment,

Doffs cap and curties to my 'betters' - Yeah right :-P

In this case i do agree,

1, whilst these companies enjoy free labour why would they employ staff that they have to pay?
2, whilst your working unpaid when would you have time to look for paid work?
3, in the case listed Miss Reilly who was already doing voluntary work had no time left to continue with her voluntary work (so she was already doing voluntary work)
4, She had to do 30 hours per week at poundland to keep her JSA in my book that mean the government is guilty of paying people below the minimum wage

JSA is abt just over £70 per week for 30 hours "do the maths"

Roy

Of course it was - especially as she was already working for free in a charity shop.

Rules & Regs gone mad......

I could understand if she did not want to work but this case is just plain ridculous

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928

Roy

Oh dear there will be some very unhappy people in the government today :-D

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a university graduates claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful.

Three judges in London ruled that the regulations under which most of the Government's back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful and quashed them.

Solicitors for the claimants said the ruling means all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits.