INTERVIEWER Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 What is it that makes you think you have the right to tell young jobless people that they can't gain this type of on the job experience if they want to? I'm not telling young unemployed people they can't gain this type of 'on the job' experience, just that if they do it it is only fair that they should feel ALL of the benefits of the 'on the job' experience - especially the most important part that rewards them financially for their labour. Why do you feel that the national minimum wage shouldn't be paid to the young jobless carrying out work for multi-billion pound companies such as McDonalds? The same McDonalds that has taken millions from taxpayers but hasn't created a single new job with the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Is this the same McDonald's that pocketed £10million of public money for an apprenticeship scheme... ...but has not created a single new job with it? The same McDonalds's that uses workfare labour to help it maximise profit and avoid paying the national minimum wage to all of its workers? Personally I don't give a flying fart if it is. If they are not paying the NMW then why are they not up in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Can some of you people just get one thing in your heads. They are NOT AN EMPLOYEE. They are NOT WORKING LIKE AN EMPLOYEE. They are not compelled to work bound by company policy, job contracts, role descriptions, regulations, responsibilities or fixed duties. They are not contractually obliged to turn up, they are not bound by staffing rotas to work a set amount of hours, they are not under jurisdiction of company managers or supervisors. They are doing a simple work placement. They are getting hands on experience and training from a company which is kindly providing this free of charge. Plus the company is using their exisitng staff resources as the work placement will require constant supervision. Hardly "free labour" is it? Anyone with a brain can see that a few weeks work placement during long term unemployment would have a positive impact on their cv. In a tough market dont you think that an employer would be more impressed with someone who has actually bothered to DO SOMETHING during their 6, 12, 24 months unemployment compared to someone else who just sat on their backside. You get paid a wage when you earn it. Doing a few weeks heavily supervised training or work experience is NOT. How would you feel if some untrained, unskilled work experience bod casually turned up for a few weeks and walked away with the same monthly pay cheque as you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I didn't have to do a placement, that was only one of the options & it was voluntary. Training was another available option. I found myself a job, but I only got the job due to the subsidy being paid to my employer (roughly the same as JSA) for the first 6 months. I was paid above minimum wage & the job involved a lot of training. You got put on new deal after six months, then a lot of extra help was available to help you find a job, there were lots of different options, none of them were forced unpaid labour. It's good that you got a job from it. Perhaps people who have found work from this new but essentially same thing also are pleased with the result. You basically did a placement and found employment from it. Were you paid minimum wage during the placement, out of interest? As my link showed, it was considered by many to be 'demoralising' and 'pointless'. (perhaps they just didn't want to work, unlike most of us, who do. I don't know that, it would be a guess, but I don't like guesswork). I appreciate how hard it must be for you, but you don't seem to understand that you started talking about a totally different scheme & tried to compare it. I support one, but not the other. Thank you for giving my imbecilic brain some leeway. So you support the New Deal yes? The stated purpose is to reduce unemployment by providing training, subsidised employment and voluntary work to the unemployed. Spending on the New Deal was £1.3 billion in 2001. but, you state, in the Tesco debate... There are lots of things the government could do to improve the economy without it costing a penny, maybe even save some money in excess bureaucracy. You argued against the practice of paying employers earlier in the Tesco issue* in this thread, now you are claiming to support it (*even though, no one has yet posted any evidence that Tesco are taking payments) - Another issue is over whether it is PAID & who does the paying. Another issue is over the type of experience on offer. It used to be paid to employers by the government; now it is only paid IF the employer takes someone on in paid employment. - Can some of you people just get one thing in your heads. They are NOT AN EMPLOYEE. They are NOT WORKING LIKE AN EMPLOYEE. They are not compelled to work bound by company policy, job contracts, role descriptions, regulations, responsibilities or fixed duties. They are not contractually obliged to turn up, they are not bound by staffing rotas to work a set amount of hours, they are not under jurisdiction of company managers or supervisors. They are doing a simple work placement. They are getting hands on experience and training from a company which is kindly providing this free of charge. Plus the company is using their exisitng staff resources as the work placement will require constant supervision. Hardly "free labour" is it? Anyone with a brain can see that a few weeks work placement during long term unemployment would have a positive impact on their cv. In a tough market dont you think that an employer would be more impressed with someone who has actually bothered to DO SOMETHING during their 6, 12, 24 months unemployment compared to someone else who just sat on their backside. You get paid a wage when you earn it. Doing a few weeks heavily supervised training or work experience is NOT. How would you feel if some untrained, unskilled work experience bod casually turned up for a few weeks and walked away with the same monthly pay cheque as you?? How many people are you ruling out with this sentence in bold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Can some of you people just get one thing in your heads. They are NOT AN EMPLOYEE. They are NOT WORKING LIKE AN EMPLOYEE. They are not compelled to work bound by company policy, job contracts, role descriptions, regulations, responsibilities or fixed duties. They are not contractually obliged to turn up, they are not bound by staffing rotas to work a set amount of hours, they are not under jurisdiction of company managers or supervisors. They are doing a simple work placement. They are getting hands on experience and training from a company which is kindly providing this free of charge. Plus the company is using their exisitng staff resources as the work placement will require constant supervision. Hardly "free labour" is it? Anyone with a brain can see that a few weeks work placement during long term unemployment would have a positive impact on their cv. In a tough market dont you think that an employer would be more impressed with someone who has actually bothered to DO SOMETHING during their 6, 12, 24 months unemployment compared to someone else who just sat on their backside. You get paid a wage when you earn it. Doing a few weeks heavily supervised training or work experience is NOT. How would you feel if some untrained, unskilled work experience bod casually turned up for a few weeks and walked away with the same monthly pay cheque as you?? How much training do you actually need to work in a shop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 They are not compelled to work bound by company policy, job contracts, role descriptions, regulations, responsibilities or fixed duties. They are not contractually obliged to turn up, they are not bound by staffing rotas to work a set amount of hours, they are not under jurisdiction of company managers or supervisors. what part of workfare dont you understand ? they are made to work for nothing or their benefits will be stopped. so will they be able to sit at a desk all day and do nothing ?or will they have to work how the company see fit, are they not bound by health and safety in the workplace,will they be able to split the 30 hours into the week how they see fit ? as in your words "they are not bound by staffing rotas" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Can some of you people just get one thing in your heads. They are NOT AN EMPLOYEE. They are NOT WORKING LIKE AN EMPLOYEE. They are not compelled to work bound by company policy, job contracts, role descriptions, regulations, responsibilities or fixed duties. They are not contractually obliged to turn up, they are not bound by staffing rotas to work a set amount of hours, they are not under jurisdiction of company managers or supervisors. They are doing a simple work placement. They are getting hands on experience and training from a company which is kindly providing this free of charge. Plus the company is using their exisitng staff resources as the work placement will require constant supervision. Hardly "free labour" is it? Anyone with a brain can see that a few weeks work placement during long term unemployment would have a positive impact on their cv. In a tough market dont you think that an employer would be more impressed with someone who has actually bothered to DO SOMETHING during their 6, 12, 24 months unemployment compared to someone else who just sat on their backside. You get paid a wage when you earn it. Doing a few weeks heavily supervised training or work experience is NOT. How would you feel if some untrained, unskilled work experience bod casually turned up for a few weeks and walked away with the same monthly pay cheque as you?? I'm pretty sure Tesco or whatever get paid for every 'volunteer' they take on. Also A4e get paid. They have pocketed £500,000 so far. That's an awful lot of money which could be far better invested in creating real jobs. How many trolley pushers does the world need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 How much training do you actually need to work in a shop? Depends what shop, depends what job. There is more to just doing a job too. Actually turning up on time everyday is part of knowing whether someone is up to a job. Seeing whether a person has a good attitude/temperament with customers is another. I'm pretty sure Tesco or whatever get paid for every 'volunteer' they take on. Also A4e get paid. They have pocketed £500,000 so far. That's an awful lot of money which could be far better invested in creating real jobs. How many trolley pushers does the world need? Define this Anna. No one has yet in all of these debates posted any evidence that the MWA employers take any payments. They only take payments for people that they actually employ following work experience (as far as I can work out, or anyone has linked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 How much training do you actually need to work in a shop? About 4 weeks I should imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'm not telling young unemployed people they can't gain this type of 'on the job' experience, just that if they do it it is only fair that they should feel ALL of the benefits of the 'on the job' experience - especially the most important part that rewards them financially for their labour. Why do you feel that the national minimum wage shouldn't be paid to the young jobless carrying out work for multi-billion pound companies such as McDonalds? I think that's exactly what you are trying to tell young people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get on the job training if they want too. Why are there always people who feel they should bang some politically motivated gong rather than let people try to better themselves? Once they have any type of work experience they become far more likely to be able to find similar work. The payment level is irrelevant. Some folks are paying to go to China to work for nothing so they have work experience on their CV. I suppose they go over there because they won't have politically motivated know it alls telling them they can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.