Girl turns down 'mandatory' work placement

[Darth Vader]

I don't see how she expects to win this court case.

 

The Human Rights Act says she's entitled to refuse to take the placement. It does not say that she's entitled to unemployment benefits. If she refuses to take the placement, she won't be.

 

If you are denying someone their human rights, you are committing an illegal act, HeadingNorth. If it is found that this would be a breech of her human rights, and therefore an illegal act, it cannot have an effect on her benefits.

[Dee01]

First of all this is costing the tax payer, she maybe going to court but is she going o pay for the solicitors etc - I guess not.

 

Would she sue if she had to pay -I guess not.

 

What people leaving university forget is that the majority of degrees don't actually train you for work, they only provide you with knowledge to take into the work place, the best people to work for and with are the ones that take every opportunity as a learning experience, grab it by both hands learn and move on to the next level.

 

A job out of a job is always easier

 

Most future employers would admire this on a cv rather than knock her for taking the job, it would strength of character.

 

Every day should be a school day - every opportunity is an opportunity on learn

 

Some of the most successful people started from scratch and worked their way up

[Darth Vader]

I object to my taxes going to subsidise retail companies who offer nothing in return.

 

So do I. And furthermore, I object to my taxes subsidising private companies who are supposed to be helping people back to work, passing such tricks off as such, and the government facilitating this.

 

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.

 

 

Couldn't agree more, but that's always been the Tory way, hasn't it?

 

Companies who get involved are risking their reputations and thus their livelihoods. We can decide who to buy from. The Tesco fiasco yesterday proves no one is too big to fall.

[SiSiSi]

There are a shed load of people who have no skills and no intention of working, yet they target this graduate who wants to work and is doing what she can to get a job in a field she is skilled in. Seems to me she is an easy target, they have a massive pool of wasters who rock up at the job centre stinking of weed, are generally abusive a complete waste of air and they let them get away with murder as it's easier.

 

And those are just the people who work there!

[fake]

So do I. And furthermore, I object to my taxes subsidising private companies who are supposed to be helping people back to work, passing such tricks off as such, and the government facilitating this.

 

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more, but that's always been the Tory way, hasn't it?

 

New deal, back to work, mandatory work experience and modern apprenticeships were all initiatives started by the Blair Labour Government as were the providers A4E, Remploy, Wise Ability etc. This government are just carrying on from that and trying to take credit for it.

[NorthernStar]

If Poundland or any other unscrupulous scumbag company want people to work for them they should at the very least be paying the national minimum wage, and frankly I find that an insult to their staff.

 

Just when I thought the race to the bottom had come to a conclusion of sorts, the government invent new depths for the lowest of the low to stoop to.

 

I truly hope this young lass wins her case, I can only wish the worst for the low life bottom feeders who hope to profit from worthless work for nothing schemes and their vile and unethical CEO's.

[grafikhaus74]

This is truly a story of our times and raises all kinds of points. Should a person be forced into a job they don't want? Yeah, yeah I can already see the 'Plenty of people do jobs they don't like' argument. But this is a graduate and the chances of her sticking a job at Poundland are negligible. At best, she'd be disinterested which will lead to timekeeping problems etc., so what is the point?

 

Then there's the - very relevant - point that she hasn't made a single contribution to the tax system, but seems to think she can just sign on until a 'suitable' job comes along.

 

And that brings us to the crux of the benefit problem. Every year, the number of days you must 'work for the taxman' increases. I believe this year it's 202 days, which means you must work until late July before you start earning money for yourself. This problem can only increase while Governments tinker at the edges of the problem. Ergo work becomes less appealing, the dole queue grows and the problem gets worse. Time for radical thinking. So here's mine (actually, I don't think it's 'radical' - just common sense).

 

What you get out of the system will be in direct correlation to what you've put in.

 

There. Not so difficult, is it?

[anywebsite]

Sorry who has a monopoly on land?

 

I think he means that anybody who owns any land has a monopoly on that particular piece of land that they own.

 

It's a bit of a weak argument, because usually somebody else owns a similar piece of land, so you still have competitive market forces acting on prices.

 

The alternative is a communist system where the state has a monopoly on all land, that is worse.

[md00071]

When I was 19 I had my one and only experience of being on the dole. I did it for 6 months, naively applying for jobs way above my station and abilities, and got nowhere near getting a job. At the end of six months, the DSS told me I had to choose an "Employment Training Scheme" to go on for a year, or lose my benefits. This was when the government were getting slated for their YTS "slave labour" schemes. I went to work for Comet as a sales advisor for a year, unpaid by them, just to keep my benefits. Worked 39 hours a week, with only 20 days authorised leave. It felt like slave labour at the time, but as time passed, I realised that I was learning valuable people skills, negotiation skills, planning, organising etc. 14 years later I left what became a very enjoyable career in retail, which I still miss to this day.

 

Point is, I would never have even considered actually going for a job like this in the first place. With this graduate, the idea that we have to subsidise her search to fulfil her chosen career, when there are other careers open to her, is a joke. I mean, loads of kids grow up wanting to be train drivers. We wouldn't find it acceptable to allow them to stay on benefits for years while one of the few train drivers jobs becomes available. What stops them from applying for jobs in their chosen field whilst doing more menial jobs?

 

I think it comes down to attitude. She obviously has no idea if she thinks she's comparable to people around the world in places where there is real forced labour.

[Tony]

As md00071 says, perhaps the lady in question needs to adjust her grown up expectations?

 

Did she ask herself if there would be any well paid graduate jobs in museums before she went to university?