NorthernStar Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 How do you feel about expecting people do nothing at all for less money than they need to live on? That is at least understandable, it also gives a real incentive for someone to earn and feel like they are actually earning as opposed to being exploited. I don't think there are any excuses for some lowlife to consider themselves as a great success for merely stooping lower than their competitors are prepared to, as some vile and talentless scumbags seem to think. Ripping people off is not clever and serves no real purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Emma Harrison is earning millions per year, not being paid millions. Earning money in the same way as the likes of Benyon who gets paid millions on the basis that he owns a 20000 acre estate, via taxpayer funded subsidy. Not for doing anything useful, just being paid to own land, whilst we have homeless, jobless landless peasants and allotment waiting lists. She gets paid for no real reason in particular, and not for productive work. I could 'earn' some money by hitting somebody with a bat and taking their wallet. It doesn't make it right. It isn't productive. And we have millions of people whom wish to grow food on idle land on waiting lists! (Some of these are unemployed and being forced to work for poundland for free!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Emma Harrison is earning millions per year, not being paid millions. That actually annoys me, I understand that she calls her so called business a 'training provider' but doesn't actually offer any useful training at all:confused: Looks to me like just another scam artist who puts your average tabloid chav stereotype to shame when it comes to playing the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 That won't stand up in court. I've read as much of the JSA as I could before I nearly died of boredom, but the MWA looks pretty water tight to me. She perhaps didn't read it all. Most probably don't. My work contract is long, and boring, but I've read it all because it defines my income, and means to live. Perhaps as a uni graduate, I would expect her to have looked into things further. I can't say that I wouldn't be irked too, but so far, all the arguments against in this thread have been 'moral' ones. If she is going to court, morals won't stand up to written agreements, unless they are unreasonable or break HR laws. I can't see anything that suggests either of the two. If she wins, I'll put in my claim for whiplash. If she loses, and her legal costs were paid by tax-payers, then I expect her to pay back all the legal fees, and all that she has claimed fraudulently. She's not suggesting that she was treated wrongly under the existing legislation, but that the legislation itself is wrong. It doesn't matter what's in any of the written agreements if there's a chance that - legally - the regulations that require jobseekers to work for free for large corporations is unlawful. At least, that's how I understand it, being almost entirely ignorant of the law. Last week, I launched judicial review proceedings in the high court – a challenge to regulations that require up to 50,000 jobseekers to carry out unpaid work at major corporations. A case such as this cannot result in significant damages; from day one, my challenge has been about the principle, not the money. It is about social justice. I think it's massively unreasonable (morally speaking) to expect anyone to work for free in a sector they already have experience in (particularly if they've been told that it's 'training' and they'll get a job interview at the end of it which then doesn't materialise). I also don't know why anyone would want to defend the right of Poundland or similar companies to profit from the use of unemployed people for free. I can just about see an argument that job seekers might be asked to work for free for the public good, but for Poundland? It's grim. As for your final paragraph, what are you accusing her of claiming fraudulently? That's quite an accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The conservatives may have changed things, whoever under Labour companys did get the £2000 on completion of the 3 week placement. You seemed pretty sure earlier. would a small builder/mechanic/plumber etc be given these grants then, or is it only companies like tesco/poundland etc ? Looking at the links that have been posted ricgem, there seems to be a difference in what happens. The vast payments to thieving Poundland type companies hasn't been shown by anyone, yet, in 10 pages. I don't know, I'm waiting for someone to say otherwise with some evidence of it. From what I've established, there are two distinct things here. 1. MWA (mandatory work activity) which is dealt with in the link that I posted in post 128. This is a few weeks work, as part of the agreement, which has been signed and agreed to by a receiver of JSA. 2. Payments to companies that take on apprentices, and the DWP pays the NI (or thereabouts) for a year. (link was posted by fake, post 172) These seem to me to be 2 issues. Not one. (well no one has posted otherwise anyway) would a small builder/mechanic/plumber etc be given these grants then, or is it only companies like tesco/poundland etc ? Based on the post above, I think that if you are a small builder/mechanic/plumber etc ric, then the gov't will pay you the equivalent NI for one year, if you take on an apprentice, who you would presumably have to pay minimum wage. That's my understanding of it, unless someone can show anything different, to which I am all ears. what can they contribute when they not getting paid See above, I think we've (well I have) moved on from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 She's not suggesting that she was treated wrongly under the existing legislation, but that the legislation itself is wrong. It doesn't matter what's in any of the written agreements if there's a chance that - legally - the regulations that require jobseekers to work for free for large corporations is unlawful. At least, that's how I understand it, being almost entirely ignorant of the law. Why did she sign an agreement to something that she considered morally and/or legally wrong? I think it's massively unreasonable (morally speaking) to expect anyone to work for free in a sector they already have experience in (particularly if they've been told that it's 'training' and they'll get a job interview at the end of it which then doesn't materialise). Well, some things in life are ridiculous, and a few fall in the ridiculous net. Bold-If a staff member has made a mistake, then perhaps they should be sacked and placed on JSA, then replaced in work at the same place, and not taken on because they were useless . I just don't buy the job interview at the end of it (you haven't used the word guaranteed, but it's often used, or implied, and a pointless word anyway) I also don't know why anyone would want to defend the right of Poundland or similar companies to profit from the use of unemployed people for free. I can just about see an argument that job seekers might be asked to work for free for the public good, but for Poundland? It's grim. Not me, I'm not defending any companies. As pointed out earlier by someone else, and in my experience, 'free-workers' or 'work-experience' workers are most definitely not always 'working for free' for the benefit of the company. Liability would be a better word (in my experience of work exp, NOT apprenticeships). As for your final paragraph, what are you accusing her of claiming fraudulently? That's quite an accusation. She signed an agreement to receive payments in exchange for certain conditions, which she isn't prepared to adhere to... seems straight forward to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 All you bitter right-on self made I'm alright jack judgemental retards can dress this up how you like, its blatant modern day exploitation similar to the Victorian workhouses we used to have but under another disguise. I don't think she'll win but good on her for standing up for what is unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotPhil Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't think she'll win but good on her for standing up for what is unjust.Unjust? I'd happily spend Mon-Fri as a Spearmint Rhino volunteer talent checker. I can't see me being able to claim benefits for it. How unjust! My human rights are being trampled all over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missflirtuk Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I had to work in Poundland for 10 days as part of my jobseekers agreement. We were told the place near the girls toilets were haunted. I heard some weird noises in the back where the stock was kept. I was made to clean the shelves which looked like they had never seen a cloth in the whole time the shop was open. I also had to rearrange the stock every day and tidy the stock. Apparently you were meant to get travel and dinner money. Never saw any of these, so it was costing me more out of my JSA. At the end I was told ''it seems like your heart wasn't in it, so we won't be taking you on''. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Expecting people to work for less than they need to live on is totally unethical, governments and businesses have good motives for being unethical, anyone involved in this kind of abhorrent exploitation should be ashamed of themselves; if there are jobs available the minimum wage should be enforced as an absolute IMO. She was being paid her benefits and had been for some time, clearly it's enough for her to live on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.