alchresearch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 While there are obviously failings at the job centre who gave out wrong information, the biggest concern of mine is that she finds working at Poundland a hindrance to her job seeking (erm, what about evenings and days she's not working?), but she didn't find working those same hours in the museum to be a hindrance. Her statement yesterday primarily focused on it impeding her volunteer work. That is not acceptable. She should be available for work, and if not working, then looking for work in that time. Video here: 2 minutes 44 seconds in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928 "I brought this case because I was prevented from doing my voluntary work at my museum and forced to work in Poundland for free for two weeks." When I was once made redundant I was asked if I did any voluntary work. I did, and had to jump through all kinds of hoops to prove that I wasn't doing it during work or work-seeking time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 The way that I would see the volunteering angle is that "The Pen Museum is operated entirely by volunteers" in any case. One would assume that the other volunteers have all the same calls on their time as she does, except that she didn't have any work to go to. She's really pushing it to claim that she should have been at The Pen Musuem instead of Poundland (or somewhere else). Whether she should have been sent to Poundland is another thing altogether. If she genuinely picked up valuable work skills there, then she should appreciate that. Whether she would pick up any valuable work skills by doing extra volunteering at The Pen Museum is very much open for debate. As for Poundland / Jobcentre / Government, a reasonable compromise would for Poundland (or whoever) to pay her an amount equal to benefits plus expenses, unless they can demonstrate that they are giving her training worth more than the value of her benefits. Putting Poundland aside, there are lots of employers out there that take part in these schemes and take them seriously, not just as a source of cheap labour. That should be encouraged and integrated properly into the benefits / job seeking system. From what I've heard in reports, I'd not be very keen to have her on my staff if she turned up for an interview with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 On the contrary, I think she's saved herself a lot of heartache, disappointment, and bitterness, because she'll never have to work for a total arse. ---------- Post added 14-02-2013 at 09:40 ---------- Case in point. Given many people's views on employers in here, then it would not be on the contrary at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 You mean they can re-write the rules to make it a condition that those on JSA must do 'slave labour? Well, apart from your use of the pejorative reference to 'slave labour', yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Whether she should have been sent to Poundland is another thing altogether. If she genuinely picked up valuable work skills there, then she should appreciate that. Whether she would pick up any valuable work skills by doing extra volunteering at The Pen Museum is very much open for debate. As I have already pointed out, she already had retail experience, so had nothing to gain from working for Poundland for nowt. The only people who gained were Poundland, therefore they should be paying. The taxpayer lost out, she lost out, anyone looking for a paid job at Poundland lost out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Interesting how it's Cait Reilly who comes in for the invective when the case was about two people, the other a man called Jamieson Wilson. Mr Wilson, a qualified mechanic, was told that he had to work unpaid, cleaning furniture for 30 hours a week for six months, under a scheme called the community action programme. He objected to doing unpaid work that would not help him re-enter the jobs market and refused, leading to him losing jobseekers’ allowance for six months. Let's think about this. First, why is a woman refusing to work for free berated and hated by some people but a man refusing the same receives no such treatment? I get the impression that some people think she doesn't know her place, and that her place is different from a man's. Imagine if she was a black woman - imagine a black woman getting all uppity about not working for free. The cheek of it! Also, cleaning furniture for free for 6 months?? How does that work? "Well, I've been cleaning furniture day in day out for 4 months now, so only 2 months to go before I have learned how to clean furniture to a required standard to get me a job as a ... furniture cleaner??" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Interesting how it's Cait Reilly who comes in for the invective when the case was about two people, the other a man called Jamieson Wilson. Let's think about this. First, why is a woman refusing to work for free berated and hated by some people but a man refusing the same receives no such treatment? I get the impression that some people think she doesn't know her place, and that her place is different from a man's. Imagine if she was a black woman - imagine a black woman getting all uppity about not working for free. The cheek of it! Also, cleaning furniture for free for 6 months?? How does that work? "Well, I've been cleaning furniture day in day out for 4 months now, so only 2 months to go before I have learned how to clean furniture to a required standard to get me a job as a ... furniture cleaner??" You have highlighted the difference yourself,2 wks against 6 MONTHS,no wonder he got upset and refused,she on the other hand only had to do 2 wks.big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 You have highlighted the difference yourself,2 wks against 6 MONTHS,no wonder he got upset and refused,she on the other hand only had to do 2 wks.big difference. She seems to have objected about the principle. You have principles, lots of people don't agree with yours, but if no-one had any principles or was prepared to stand up for them we'd be in an even sorrier mess than we are already. Pointing out that a government is breaking the law is always an act of good citizenship in my book - but there I go again having principles, best send me to the gulags to drum that out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 As I have already pointed out, she already had retail experience, so had nothing to gain from working for Poundland for nowt. The only people who gained were Poundland, therefore they should be paying. The taxpayer lost out, she lost out, anyone looking for a paid job at Poundland lost out. I can't disagree with anything you say there. There should be some kind of hybrid system that both gives the individual useful experience and allows willing organisations to provide useful experience, while giving the 'system' maximum bang for it's buck. I'm sure that it's easier said than done, but that's no reason not to strive for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 boycott workfare seem to be having some sucess in getting companies to pull out of the work programme,thats good in itself,explotation should never be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.