southcoast Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Oxfam have informed me that they do not and will not take part in any workfare programme,so if anyone is asked to go there by their provider like A4E tell them no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Oxfam have informed me that they do not and will not take part in any workfare programme,so if anyone is asked to go there by their provider like A4E tell them no. Actually, back in 1995 I was sent to work in the Oxfam on King St in Town when I was on a scheme similar to A4E (in fact it was more or less the same thing in all but name). I wouldn't mind but I told the clueless cretins in the employment service I was too old for a YTS scheme at 19! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 The next target has to be the British Heart Foundation who are using MWA people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Anyone who think Workfare is about helping people into jobs is imo, deluded, its about being punitive: to the claimant, on many of these schemes unemployed people are 'working' alongside those on 'community payback', a deliberate attempt by the Govt to associate being unemployed/claiming, with criminality, a throwback to the 19th C. Its also a warning to those in work to tow the line or they could in the same position next, and of its about course saving money for the treasury. It's also ideological: the neo-liberal notion of the 'active citizen' if you are not doing something, then you aren't a full member of society, etc.. In New York former council workers have lost their jobs as gardeners, cleaners, etc, and a few months later put on Workfare, having said that the Obama administration is reining back from this indentured slavery and creating real jobs as are many US states... Here, Welfare To work is unravelling(tellingly it has not faced such scrutiny before as indeed welfare reform in general hasn't) with many major companies pulling out, tens of thousands of mainly young people(who are WTW's main targets) are joining in very successful online campaigns to challenge it, and of course A4E, one its key structural elements is under police investigation... Its crazy that young people and others are being forced into these cheap labour schemes: in countries like Brazil, people are being funded to study, train, etc in all the cutting edge technologies, skills of the future, here we seem to be going back to the casualised and harrassed workforce of the 19th C. We all know the people on these boards that think it is fair though, all 3 of them, (the rest are probably aliasses which have been created to try and make themselves look popular, or at least to try and give their arguments a bit of weight.) They are thoroughly dustgustingly unpleasant people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 All moving into different issues... back to the topic But, if in the position of a Tesco manager. 23 applicants apply for a job of collecting trolleys. All 23 applicants are enthusiastic, healthy, all want the job, all have the same qualifications, and one of them has done the job before, and has a reference to say that he/she did the job well. Which would you take on? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handypandy Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I don't mean to hijack this thread, but if the whole employment/ tax / NI / benefits/ employment law etc etc wasn't so ruddy complicated, a lot more people could be in paid employment. I could occasionally ( and I'm willing to bet there are a million like me), find temporary work for people. The red tape involved for both parties makes the prospect too daunting to contemplate. Lets just say for example's sake that I could occasionally find work for someone for a couple of days here and there. If there was a scheme whereby that person could earn wages for those odd days but keep their benefits in tact for the days when they couldn't find work, without all the hassle of reclaiming, surely that could work. I have a network of self-employed colleagues that would also be able to use a scheme like this. The 'employee' would also build up a network of 'employers' and before long could easily be working full time, albeit for different folk. Come on now, tell me why it wouldn't work, because it seems simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. Why not just have a negative income tax? Pays people who earn below a basic amount. Scrap the benefits system, make sure that nobody is in poverty or penalised for working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkatoy Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 You mean the scheme to get people experience in a work environment so that they're more likely to be employable? Why should I be trying to stop a scheme that's intended to make people more employable? Am I in favour of high unemployment? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 burger king has now stopped this practice if these companies now take on people in proper jobs this could give the economy the boost it needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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? where did we get experience from in the first place? these companies paid you to train so you could do the job. why people think its ok for big companies to have a steady workforce paid by the taxpayer is beyond me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.