Stop workfare join today

[Joe9T]

I'm just imagining a restaurant interviewing for catering staff. They have 10 applicants and one has a good reference from a work placement at Burger King, the rest couldn't be bothered to get their back off the bed. Who's most likely to get the job?

 

But if work placement does succeed so to speak and every 4 weeks a new batch arrive, then in not too little time, there will be millions of applicants going for jobs with work placement references, but still no job. Then the restaurant will have 10 out of 10 applicants with work placement references, instead of 1 out of 10, and then who is likely to get the job then?

[frank ryan]

Burger King.

 

Tesco.

 

Poundland.

 

Waterstones.

 

TK Maxx

 

All of these companies have pulled out of workfare schemes over the last few weeks. They now realise it is SHAMEFUL to pretend that workers in their outlets don't deserve the national minimum wage...

 

I don't think they fell 'shame' - I think they fear the backlash of lost revenue and the morale to their real employees - imagine being a hard working shop employee next to an unpaid coleague doing your potential overtime - work experience can be good, experience of the discipline of employment is essential, but not as unpaid additional labour.

 

my niece has done 5 'internships' as a designer in the last 2 years, all but 1 without expenses - she had to pay her own bus fares - no chance of employment afterwards, that's very close to slave labour - if the placement has a financial incentive and a chance of work if it goes well then fine , otherwise it's unacceptable and I won't shop at a company that abuses the unemployed in that way.

[southcoast]

I don't see what the problem is.It's not compulsory.I think they should run it for a year,then see how many people actually got a job from it.

Then if successful,run it for a 2nd year,and once again measure it's success/failure.

In the 3rd year,see how many people aint bothered their butts to give it a try,and then make it compulsory for the long-term idlers.

 

 

Oh but MWA IS compulsory,failure to attend and you can lose your JSA.

[Joe9T]

I don't think they fell 'shame' - I think they fear the backlash of lost revenue

 

I agree, as i have since boycotted Tesco!!!

[*_ash_*]

To answer you again, IT DOESN'T MATTER, all they're doing is pushing trolleys, it doesn't take anybody more than 5 minutes experience to learn how to do the job as well as it possibly can be done. Might as well pick the names out of a hat. A continuous stream of 4-week placements means that they no longer have to pay any trolley collectors, or shelf stackers, in Tesco's ideal world, far better to just take another forced unpaid 4 week trial on than pay any of them.

 

If these were jobs with real training, a recognised qualification, a transferable skill then it could be argued it was worthwhile. It's not like that.

 

So if you were the manager of a Tescos, you'd pull names out of a hat to employ them. Ok. Since we now know your business methods, your posts become clearer.

 

That just about sums it up. I see Burger King has now pulled out. So people who have no work experience will not get work experience.

 

I'm just imagining a restaurant interviewing for catering staff. They have 10 applicants and one has a good reference from a work placement at Burger King, the rest couldn't be bothered to get their back off the bed. Who's most likely to get the job?

 

This is right. This was what Labour initially started this thing for. Most people in here seem to be against it.

 

-

 

anywsite, you have contradicted yourself [your argument] in this post...

You speak a lot of sense handy. If somebody on benefits wants to do a couple of days work they usually end up losing more than or 100% of what they earn. It's a crazy situation.

 

All the red tape involved means that it's often not worth it for either the unemployed person, or the employer for a part time temporary job which could lead to more work.

 

The workfare system is designed for big business & that's all. A busy small businessman can't afford to go through all the hassle of dealing with the job centre for something like that.

 

That is 'supposedly' what the work experience is about (not MWA).

 

Incidentally, Labour paid employers for this kind of work. It seems that this is no longer the case unless the employer takes the person on.

[anywebsite]

So if you were the manager of a Tescos, you'd pull names out of a hat to employ them. Ok. Since we now know your business methods, your posts become clearer.

 

I don't employ trolley collectors, but if I did it wouldn't matter to me how much experience they had, because it's a completely unskilled job. No trolley collector is ever likely to be any better than any other trolley collector, as long as they're doing their job. It isn't a job that requires any significant training or ability.

 

I'm sure that supermarkets think much the same way, as long as they turn up, push enough trolleys & don't steal anything it's about as good as you get.

 

If you had a choice of trolley collectors, if you were totally heartless & only cared about maximising profits, then you're given the choice between...

 

a) being sent new trolley collectors every 4 weeks & paying them nothing

b) having to recruit people, pay them minimum wage, ni & comply with other employment legislation.

 

Then you're not going to pick b are you? You're not even going to bother advertising it, never mind being in your hypothetical interview situation, because the government is supplying & paying your workforce. If you're paying other people to do those jobs then you'll start cutting their hours, finding excuses to sack them & making them redundant.

 

Just because the government doesn't send you free staff doesn't mean that shelves will go unstacked, or trolleys uncollected, it just means that Tesco have to pay people to do those jobs & they'll have to go through the normal recruitment process that other companies do to find their new staff.

 

I'd have no objection if the participants were getting training to learn a valuable skill that would make them any more employable, but you're just kidding yourself if you think that's the case.

 

Incidentally, I'm not a Labour Party member, or even one of their voters, so I don't know how that's relevant to anything.

[*_ash_*]

I don't employ trolley collectors, but if I did it wouldn't matter to me how much experience they had, because it's a completely unskilled job. No trolley collector is ever likely to be any better than any other trolley collector, as long as they're doing their job. It isn't a job that requires any significant training or ability.

Pushing trolleys around a car park full of cars: you wouldn't consider any difference between some oik slamming them into cars because he/she doesn't give a damn, or someone or has shown that they are reliable for time-keeping, and can do the job well without any issues?

 

If you can't see the reasoning of this, then I hope you aren't employing people in any serious profession, because in your words, this is the basic unskilled of unskilled work.

 

You started this in post 13 when you said that this is driving down wages by punishing the unfortunate. We (or you) have established that pushing trolleys is unskilled, yes? So would you allow a non-skilled worker (who is on work experience) to do this job? I can only assume yes, based on your posts.

 

If indeed the answer is yes, and you also pull names out of the hat for jobs where people could quite easily damage a company, then you would be a crap recruiter.

 

You posted in post 45 that...

Do you really think it makes much difference? Is one person going to be better at pushing trolleys than another because they've had 8 weeks experience of doing it for free? Or does it take half an hour to learn the whole job?

There is more to a job than being able to do it. When I want staff, I want to know that they will come in on time, not phone in sick every Monday etc; there is more to a job than the pushing of the trolley.

 

You even said it yourself that...

 

All the red tape involved means that it's often not worth it for either the unemployed person, or the employer for a part time temporary job which could lead to more work.

 

... which would be eliminated if the person gets to show that they are worthy of doing a job.

 

I'm sure that supermarkets think much the same way, as long as they turn up, push enough trolleys & don't steal anything it's about as good as you get.

 

... once again, there you go, you even said it yourself!

 

If you had a choice of trolley collectors, if you were totally heartless & only cared about maximising profits, then you're given the choice between...

 

a) being sent new trolley collectors every 4 weeks & paying them nothing

b) having to recruit people, pay them minimum wage, ni & comply with other employment legislation.

 

Then you're not going to pick b are you?

 

Let me tell you, if I was the Mr Tesco, and I had some person in there that was forced into being there (and could be someone that really doesn't want to be there), I would not let them anywhere near trolleys and cars.

 

Haven't you seen the other thread? Someone did an armed robbery in Crosspool, because the government made them live in poverty! You think I'd let them loose with a trolley? (sorry this was added as sarcasm)

 

Just because the government doesn't send you free staff doesn't mean that shelves will go unstacked, or trolleys uncollected, it just means that Tesco have to pay people to do those jobs.

 

Aside from what I've already mentioned...

 

It's against the rules of the government policy that workers are laying people off, or making money out of this, and (though I know that anything is possible with regards to cheating etc), no one, NO ONE in this or the other thread has shown any evidence that this is being breached, and I've asked plenty of times (and searched myself)

 

Incidentally, I'm not a Labour Party member, or even one of their voters, so I don't know how that's relevant to anything.

 

It's relevant to the whole argument, because this is in the news a lot now, and it's made out that the Torys started this. It's actually another case of: We didn't start it, but we are amending things (much like the long going RTB in housing, which is the same in reverse)

 

I'd have no objection if the participants were getting training to learn a valuable skill that would make them any more employable, but you're just kidding yourself if you think that's the case.

 

I have never said I'm in favour of it. I'm just not in favour of arguing against it, with no basis for reason.

[INTERVIEWER]

I have never said I'm in favour of it. I'm just not in favour of arguing against it, with no basis for reason.

 

Ah, so you are not in favour of opposing unskilled supermarket workers being unpaid for their labour whilst 'training'? Don't you think that they deserve the minimum wage? Why?

 

Since we now know your business methods, your posts become clearer.

[INTERVIEWER]

Anti-workfare activists yesterday shut down a McDonalds and HMV stores on Oxford Street, London, using entirely peaceful civil disobediance measures to express their protest and outrage against exploitation.

 

McDonalds have been given until Wednesday to withdraw from Workfare or that evening will see protestors closing McDonalds stores across the country!

 

If McDonalds and HMV don't believe that all workers in their stores are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage then they should expect protestors on their doorsteps soon!

[*_ash_*]

Ah, so you are not in favour of opposing unskilled supermarket workers being unpaid for their labour whilst 'training'? Don't you think that they deserve the minimum wage? Why?

 

Since we now know your business methods, your posts become clearer.

 

I said I've never said I'm in favour of it ('it' meaning work experience). I'm debating the argument that you lot are laying out.

 

Stop trying to look clever by writing out meaningless questions that contain so many negatives that you worm out of making any sense.

 

It's a clever little tactic to make you look like you know what you are talking about. And by the way, you wormed out of some other simple questions I left on another thread. Typical.

 

If you re-read my last post, then re-word your post without the inference or nonsense, I'll happily respond.