MrSmith Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 i dont think this a debate about the gratefullness for the opportunity, its more about how they were treated when they got there to be honest. I am with you to a point,that is with regard to future oppertunities and contributing to society,but certainly not to the degree that they had to sleep outside and had no access to toilets.Its appalling to treat people like that,most unemployed people have not chosen to be in that position,they have had no choice. Which is why my first post said. A good idea but badly executed, this kind of thing should be more widely used, although it should have been local people and no one should have been expected to sleep rough. It’s unbelievable that some idiot would bus people in from these locations instead of using London unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katy1981 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Which is why my first post said. my posts were not aimed at anyone elses. so it looks like we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Whats the problem? These people now have a CV that says they have been involved in the security and safety of a major public event, also they have progressed in their intention to obtain NVQ. I think the company should be praised in providing the transport, uniforms training etc. I hope those who had the experience gain from it and it helps them find regular work. Whats the alternaive, sit on your backside feeling sorry for yourself? Well done to all involved. The company involved should have hired people, and paid them to do the work, rather than abusing volunteers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 while id agree they should be praised for giving the unemployed an opportunity, i dont think they have gone the correct way about it and from initial reports it seems they have treated them very badly indeed. They haven't given anyone an opportunity. They've exploited people, and denied people the genuine opportunity of working for a wage by using slave labour instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The company involved should have hired people, and paid them to do the work, rather than abusing volunteers. yet again it shows the rich and their methods selfish greedy callous all spring to mind god bless "great" britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 They haven't given anyone an opportunity. They've exploited people, and denied people the genuine opportunity of working for a wage by using slave labour instead. Mutually beneficial exploitation, the volunteers exploited the company without which they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to gain work experience. The company exploited the volunteers without which they may not have won the contract to provide the stewards. The pageant exploited them both and kept their costs low, the employer and volunteers exploited the pageant without which they wouldn’t have been able to work. Mutually beneficial exploitation all round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 They haven't given anyone an opportunity. They've exploited people, and denied people the genuine opportunity of working for a wage by using slave labour instead. It's hardly slave labour as they appear to have had the choice. It's making use of a plentiful and probably largely grateful labour force. Every summer sees a similar approach by those needing fruit pickers. They've earned extra money with no loss of benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 It's hardly slave labour as they appear to have had the choice. It's making use of a plentiful and probably largely grateful labour force. Every summer sees a similar approach by those needing fruit pickers. They've earned extra money with no loss of benefit. What grateful they had the opportunity to be ****** over and the chance to sleep rough, with fear of losing benefits if they spoke out. Yeah, lucky old them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Mutually beneficial exploitation, the volunteers exploited the company without which they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to gain work experience. The company exploited the volunteers without which they may not have won the contract to provide the stewards. The pageant exploited them both and kept their costs low, the employer and volunteers exploited the pageant without which they wouldn’t have been able to work. Mutually beneficial exploitation all round. :hihi::hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 What grateful they had the opportunity to be ****** over and the chance to sleep rough, with fear of losing benefits if they spoke out. Yeah, lucky old them Yet according to the paper there was never a danger of losing benefits and who's to say that sleeping arrangements were not explained at the start or uncharacteristically for SF do we simply go with a newspaper report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.