TJC1 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 There is a site already dedicated to the human rights act, she can take the govt to court but only through the European courts..I think other people are actually doing this right now. Its a bit like the McDonalds lobbying case, you could spend your whole life fighting battles...some people do it, but it's not an 'easy' road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A few can, but not all, due to the monopoly on land. Or if you do, your effectively working for the lord of the land. Who has the monopoly on land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Many of these scheme exploit the vunerable in a terrible way, and certain businesses will have a never ending stream of unemployed who they take on for 3 weeks, and then get rid off afterwards. Unless the rules have changed, I believe the companies would recieve a payment of £2000 on completion of a 3 week placement of the people who went onto these types of job placements. Clearly, no company in the right mind (if thats how they behave) will pay someone a wage when they can get free labour from the government, and then get paid £2000 when the 3 week placement has been completed. Prior to going self employed in June of last year, I did work within FE, and my final job role was to work as an Employability Trainer (I'm now very ashamed to say). Many of my students in my final year of teaching were very vunerable people, I'm talking about women being violently beaten up, men unemployed for 30 years and all had shocking self esteem issues. The problem was, many of these people had been on schemes such as these in the past, had their hopes built up and never stood a chance. Sadly, some of the supervisors who work within these establishments are nothing short of jumped up little hitlers, who seem to get a kick out of bullying vunerable people. In my final year of work within this area, I taught my students IT and Maths (as that was my subject area in the past), and some of the students found this to boost their condidence to the point they enjoyed coming to the courses. I wasn't supposed to teach this, but I saw the benefit this had on my student's self esteem. When someone with no self worth can long multiplication or percentages, or create something on a computer it boosts how they feel. Also, with IT Skills and numeracy skills, people can then pass aptitude tests and get meaningfull full time work. In fact many of my students did go onto secure full time work (for the first time in their lives) as they now had IT or Maths skills, which impressed an employer. Sadly, the powers that me (I'm talking about people way above my line managers) could not see the benefit of IT or Maths, and so I was then forced to go back to teaching non subjects such as confidence (confidence is a muscle, use it or lose it????? confidence is a muscle? I don't think so). As a consequence, my numbers plummeted as did our job outcomes. Also, the word job outcomes is very important, as thats how many training organisations are funded. To get people into certain companies (who I won't name) and after 3 weeks funding is given to the company and the training provider. So this type of training is a fraudsters charter. It simply wastes taxpayers money, and the only people to benefit are the people who take their pay who work for these organisations. Inspections? were we inspected? of course we were, but as long as we had all the paperwork signed, the dates matched, then the inspecters would be on there way and everyone would be happy (except for the students) If you want to help the long term unemployed, then provide proper education. It would probably work out cheaper to upskill the long term unemployed, that to fund slave labour in this fashion. Luckily for me, I'm out and am doing a job I truely believe in. I can sleep at night knowing I'm not helping to expoit vunerable people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A couple of years ago, when Poundland was the penultimate threat (A4e being the worst) by the JC staff, I knew I'd have to play along with their little game. It never came to it but, believe me, Poundland would have been grateful to see the back of me. Late? Check. Incredibly slow? Check. And where is all the stock going...? A bad attitude isn't going to do your career prospects any good in a reference though is it? If I interviewed two people who had been forced to work for their benefits and the reference of one said "hard worker, accepted the demeaning work and just got on with it" and the other said "couldn't be bothered", I know which one I'd employ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A bad attitude isn't going to do your career prospects any good in a reference though is it? If I interviewed two people who had been forced to work for their benefits and the reference of one said "hard worker, accepted the demeaning work and just got on with it" and the other said "couldn't be bothered", I know which one I'd employ. If working for free was such a plus point, then why are so many people on and off these work placements? many go year in, and year out working for free. Having said that some employers will pay for a KFC for their workers, so they do get a free burger and chips for a few hours free labour. The sad thing is with the free burger and chips is that many vunerable people will not have the intelligence to see that they are being exploited (and so do the employers that provide the placements). If they were paid £6.08 an hour x 6 hours, then that would work out at far more than a free burger and chips. Having said that, when you are getting a couple of £1000 for free labour, paying for a burger and chips is hardly generous. Its like they days when the rich got fat, and the weak fed off the crumbs left on the plate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I object to my taxes going to subsidise retail companies who offer nothing in return. The idea that these schemes get people 'job ready' is a complete fallacy, neither do they lead to jobs. They are simply cheap / free labour for already profitable companies who already pay low wages to those they actually employ. It's the same story with the so called 'apprenticeships' that the government wheels out everytime it is questioned on umemployment figures. The vast majority are in the supermarket sector. Since when did you need an apprenticeship for these? Another chance for supermarkets to increase its profits by employing even cheaper labour. Everybody should be up in arms about this. It is encouraging falling wages across the board. Soon we'll be lucky to be able to afford a bowl of rice a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenadaInnit Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A bad attitude isn't going to do your career prospects any good in a reference though is it? If I interviewed two people who had been forced to work for their benefits and the reference of one said "hard worker, accepted the demeaning work and just got on with it" and the other said "couldn't be bothered", I know which one I'd employ. I doubt they would be interviewed. 2.6 million people out of work and you work for an organisation that would interview people who had been 'forced' to work. Thats really really unlikely (unless you are HR for Poundland). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I doubt they would be interviewed. 2.6 million people out of work and you work for an organisation that would interview people who had been 'forced' to work. Thats really really unlikely (unless you are HR for Poundland). And what about the graduate who's the topic of this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenadaInnit Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 And what about the graduate who's the topic of this discussion? What about her? It's not very likely that she would even apply to Poundland if she wanted to have a career in a museum. Or perhaps she would if they had a career development scheme for their employees like Lidl does for example. Why would she go to university and spend about £20k in costs (obviously more from this year) if she's happy to work in an organisation that uses staff, pays minimum wage (or nothing) and isn't learning anything of use in a future career? As a graduate, in theory she'll be paying a lot more tax in the future because she has paid for an education to get something that pays more than minimum wage. Poundland or the job centre doesn't give a rats back side if she didn't go to school her whole life or that she got a first at Oxford. It's madness! The people who are saying on here 'well I worked for peanuts and didn't claim owt', year course you did. Do you know why? Because jobs were there for you to be paid to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenadaInnit Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A bad attitude isn't going to do your career prospects any good in a reference though is it? If I interviewed two people who had been forced to work for their benefits and the reference of one said "hard worker, accepted the demeaning work and just got on with it" and the other said "couldn't be bothered", I know which one I'd employ. By the way. Demeaning work? Who the hell are you to call any work demeaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.