Cyclone Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 maybe the rest of the companies up and down the country whose workers are in this situation should do too Definitely, why wouldn't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Waterstones ends unpaid work placements after investigation Waterstones stops using unpaid jobseekers, as government rejects claim scheme is contrary to Human Rights Act Waterstones said that after the Guardian highlighted the practice at one of its stores, it initiated a review and no longer allowed branch managers to take on work experience people as it did not want to encourage working without pay. One of the companies involved in rolling out work experience placements is the health store Holland and Barrett, which has 1,000 such placements across 250 stores. A full-time employee at one Holland and Barrett store, who did not want to be identified, said they believed the placements were starting to replace paid work. "We have had a number of placements in our store and have noticed that the hours for part-time staff have been reduced. Staff are upset because we are all struggling to make ends meet," the employee said. "The real benefactors of this scheme are the companies who receive millions of pounds worth of labour absolutely free of charge and the losers are the jobseekers who see potential jobs being filled by workfare placements for months at a time and the loyal part-timers who find their regular overtime hours savagely cut." http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/03/waterstones-ends-unpaid-work-placements Well done Tories and Lib Dems. Your policies are reducing paid work for the unskilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Not only are the Tories and Lib Dems reducing unskilled, NMW job opportunities for the unemployed through their exploitative workfare schemes, but also their 'revolutionary' Work Programme (WP) is failing. The DWP's estimation of 'non-intervention performance' is 30% – the number of jobs the department expects would have been found by the unemployed without any WP service. The WP is currently finding jobs for just 20% of its customers - and in some areas as little as 10%. The government originally set targets of 40% of people for WP providers to get back into work. Work programme on track, Chris Grayling says About 20% of unemployed people who have been on the government's main welfare-to-work scheme, the Work Programme, for at least six months have been found a job, the BBC has learnt. The figures come from the trade body representing the main contractors delivering the programme. But several contractors have said they are struggling to employ the long-term jobless in the current climate. "The early indications for those customers who started in June 2011 are broadly in line with expectations," said Kirstie McHugh, chief executive of the Employment Related Services Association (ERSA), which provided the figures. However, the economy is a concern so we are going to have to keep a close eye on things." When the programme was launched in June 2011, the government said it hoped that 40% of people on it would get a job but speaking to the PM programme on BBC Radio 4, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said he was still pleased with the progress. "The Work Programme is doing a good job and is on track. It is helping long-term unemployed people into work." The overall figures provided by the ERSA may well hide regional variations and several contractors and sub-contractors spoken to by the BBC have expressed concerns about the situation in their own areas. Other figures obtained by the BBC show that in some areas - one in central Scotland, one in south-west England - fewer than 10% of people on the work programme have been placed in a job. In Liverpool, one of the main contractors, A4E, says it has managed to find work for 10% of people, while in Barnsley, the local council, which is one of the sub-contractors, says it is managing to place about 12% in a job. "The problem we face is that the jobs simply aren't there," said Steve Houghton, leader of Barnsley Metropolitan Council, "so no matter how good the work programme is, there aren't jobs for people to go to." Referral fees Under the terms of the Work Programme, contractors are paid a fee, usually £400, when the job centre refers an unemployed person to them, typically someone who has been looking for work for a year. Further, larger payment can then be made when a person has been in sustainable employment for up to two years. The harder the company has to work to find and keep someone in a job, the more money they get. But Mr Houghton said the rules actually worked against the people the scheme was intended to help, the very hardest to employ. "We are concerned that the providers, and we are doing this, are taking the low hanging fruit," said Mr Houghton. "Even though the work programme gives more money for getting the really long-term unemployed into a job, the reality is that in order to help our cash flows and keep our organisation going, we have to take the easiest ones [to find work for] in the first instance." Frustration Thirty-eight year-old Martin Williams, from St Helens, has been on the work programme for five months. Having been unemployed for eight years and attended previous back-to-work schemes with the same contractor, he is understandably frustrated. "They haven't helped me at all. It dehumanises you, and you feel worse," said Mr Williams. "It got to the stage where I thought I'd rather be hit by a bus than come in here which is not the right frame of mind to be in when you are looking for a job." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16883641 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Workfare is just not fair at all. If these companies have space to employ somebody to work within their organisation and contribute to it's profits they should have the decency to employ them and allow them to sign off benefits and pay taxes. I was shocked at the number of companies actually using unemployed people in the manner. Holland & Barrett Tesco HMV Matalan Newham Council Haringey Council The Royal Mail Bookers Wholesale Argos Maplin TK Maxx Primark Boots McDonald’s Burger King Arcadia group of clothes stores Superdrug It reminds me very much of my youth when I worked 40 hours a week for £27.50 a on a YTS, the theory being that if you proved yourself you would be given a job at the end of it, the reality was that after 13 weeks the employer would send you back and take on a new 'trainee' whilst you went onto another 'placement'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not only are the Tories and Lib Dems reducing unskilled, NMW job opportunities for the unemployed through their exploitative workfare schemes, but also their 'revolutionary' Work Programme (WP) is failing. The DWP's estimation of 'non-intervention performance' is 30% – the number of jobs the department expects would have been found by the unemployed without any WP service. The WP is currently finding jobs for just 20% of its customers - and in some areas as little as 10%. The government originally set targets of 40% of people for WP providers to get back into work. Something else to add to that, a bit old but still relevant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/09/a4e-welfare-to-work-contract?newsfeed=true It easily shows just who is benefiting from the workfare programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 But we all knew what was going to happen anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I was shocked at the number of companies actually using unemployed people in the manner. [*]Tesco Interesting story about Tesco today in the news: Tesco offer nightshift jobs for 'expenses plus the Jobseekers' Allowance' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102228/Tesco-row-unpaid-nightshift-jobs-expenses-plus-Jobseekers-Allowance.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A 22-year-old graduate has been told that she must work in Poundland - unpaid for 2 weeks as a shelf stacker - or lose her benefits. She's told them to stick it and is taking the Government to court under the Human Rights Act as, under Article 4 (2), it states ' No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour'. Crikey, this could open a bag of worms! Your opinions would be welcome. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this however she is going to lose her benefits if she doesn't work for two weeks for free, so she is still getting her benefits if she works, but she doesn't wish to work therefore she should lose them. Maybe is we stop mollycoddling these workshy people they will then be forced to go out into the world and find a job and pay taxes like everyone else has to rather than moan about it. Maybe we should countersue in that we are paying her benefits while she sits on her bottom and takes it all for granted out of our hard earned wages all those in favour say I.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Please correct me if I'm wrong about this however she is going to lose her benefits if she doesn't work for two weeks for free, so she is still getting her benefits if she works, but she doesn't wish to work therefore she should lose them. Maybe is we stop mollycoddling these workshy people they will then be forced to go out into the world and find a job and pay taxes like everyone else has to rather than moan about it. Maybe we should countersue in that we are paying her benefits while she sits on her bottom and takes it all for granted out of our hard earned wages all those in favour say I.... Have you read the thread? I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. As I recall, this young woman WAS working. She was volunteering unpaid at a museum to get relevant work experience for her chosen career, (she's a geology graduate I think.) So a work placement by any other name. Her objection was that she would lose her work placement to go and work at Poundland, which, they admitted, wouldn't lead to a job. The other objection is that using people as free labour actually cuts down the number of real jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Have you read the thread? I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. As I recall, this young woman WAS working. She was volunteering unpaid at a museum to get relevant work experience for her chosen career, (she's a geology graduate I think.) So a work placement by any other name. Her objection was that she would lose her work placement to go and work at Poundland, which, they admitted, wouldn't lead to a job. The other objection is that using people as free labour actually cuts down the number of real jobs. Yes I have read the thread several times actually, so she can volunteer as an increasing amount of students do because it enhances their CV's. So where is the issue, she is volunteering fine however if she is unwilling to work for two weeks at poundland when her education has in effect been paid for by the tax payer namely us just what is the issue, do the two weeks and go back to the museum to do the volunteering thing there easy, its not rocket science. Otherwise lose your benefits and work in Starbucks for a couple of weeks in the evenings and at least get paid for it, = one less benefit to pay. Its not free labour she is getting benefits therefore she is in effect being paid for not actually working - simples! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.