General Chat

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.

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.

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

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.

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