alchresearch Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I disagree with you here. I agree with her taking the government to court over this one. Its not the usual skiver trying to get out of doing some graft. She had some voluntary work lined up that would help her gain vaulble skills. So she should not have to go to poundland. I've not read back through all the thread I referred to but someone posted: She was working as a volunteer at the Birmingham Museum of Pens. She wasn't exactly helping cancer patients get to hospital. She wanted to be offered a job there but none had materialised but she seems to think that she should be allowed to work there as long as she likes, supported by benefits in the hope that at some point in the future they might offer her a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 She's working part time at Morrisons, so evidently her retail work experience stood her in good stead, despite her bleating about it. Yes, and despite being a graduate, she failed to spot the irony (thats assuming she works in the shop and isn't digging up the car park) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Don't see why the likes of Poundland should benefit from free labour. Hope this young woman does well in life - she has shown considerable courage in taking on the DWP I agree. Why should tax payers subsidise multi million pound companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I agree. Why should tax payers subsidise multi million pound companies. or people who don't want to work for that matter? The upshot is that a. benefits staff overstepped their authority. b. she should have been placed with a third sector organisation. c. she should have had benefits stopped if she didn't take up b. It will be interesting to see if she's done hundreds of thousands of people a bad turn by defining case law so that they have their benefits stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 She's working part time at Morrisons, so evidently her retail work experience stood her in good stead, despite her bleating about it. She already had plenty of retail experience, hence no need to do more to get 'valuable work experience'. Tell you what, let's see how you'd react if the government decided to give people valuable experience in gardening and horticulture by ensuring there was a permanent supply of free labour from a private gardening firm (other than yours). The problem with these schemes is that it replaces paid jobs with unpaid jobs, and the people who used to be in paid jobs then become unemployed, providing further free labour, and so on and so on. Read about this call centre using prisoners on £3 an hour while firing fully paid employees and you get the idea of where this will end up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185407/Prisoners-paid-15-day-man-phones-solar-panel-centre-union-boss-says-cost-jobs.html#axzz2KiaT4YmA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 It makes you wonder how highly qualified the legal advisors are who advised the govt. how to implement the scheme in the first place...they did take legal advice, didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 She already had plenty of retail experience, hence no need to do more to get 'valuable work experience'. Tell you what, let's see how you'd react if the government decided to give people valuable experience in gardening and horticulture by ensuring there was a permanent supply of free labour from a private gardening firm (other than yours). The problem with these schemes is that it replaces paid jobs with unpaid jobs, and the people who used to be in paid jobs then become unemployed, providing further free labour, and so on and so on. Read about this call centre using prisoners on £3 an hour while firing fully paid employees and you get the idea of where this will end up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185407/Prisoners-paid-15-day-man-phones-solar-panel-centre-union-boss-says-cost-jobs.html#axzz2KiaT4YmA Mate, there already is. I just choose not to play that game. I get contacted at least once a week being offered young people on "apprenticeships" for nowt or next to nowt. There are firms "employing" a carouselle of youngsters for nothing who they're charging out at £20+ with VAT on top. They don't last long in my market because the customer sees the results but in the amenity market they make serious cash. It clearly needs managing better and checks in place to ensure that real jobs are not being removed and as I understand it the new system will focus more on offering voluntary places for those who are up for it and managing out the deadbeats from the welfare system based on their job search activity (or rather lack of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Mate, there already is. I just choose not to play that game. I get contacted at least once a week being offered young people on "apprenticeships" for nowt or next to nowt. There are firms "employing" a carouselle of youngsters for nothing who they're charging out at £20+ with VAT on top. They don't last long in my market because the customer sees the results but in the amenity market they make serious cash. It clearly needs managing better and checks in place to ensure that real jobs are not being removed and as I understand it the new system will focus more on offering voluntary places for those who are up for it and managing out the deadbeats from the welfare system based on their job search activity (or rather lack of it). No-one will argue with voluntary placements, or placements in third sector organisations. It's the for-profit sector that is problematic because any group of shareholders will want the maximum dividend and if unpaid, forced labour gives bigger profits than paid jobs then that is what they will demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 or people who don't want to work for that matter? The upshot is that a. benefits staff overstepped their authority. b. she should have been placed with a third sector organisation. c. she should have had benefits stopped if she didn't take up b. It will be interesting to see if she's done hundreds of thousands of people a bad turn by defining case law so that they have their benefits stopped. She's done nobody a bad turn really. The schemes will be revamped and continue but in a more lawful way, which is a good thing not a bad thing. Taxpayers are the ones that we lose out because of more government incompetence. How many millions pounds are we going to be stung for because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Really don't understand why all the free-marketeers dry up and wither on this issue. On the 'Occupy' threads everyone was a raging Capitalist, and now the state is forcing people to labour against the free-market, and subsidising that labour, suddenly there is a chasm of silence on the issue. Here is my point. I earn money by selling my labour in the marketplace. I have certain skills, and they earn me money so I can live. It is wrong for the government to force me to pay tax, and then to use that tax to undermine the market in which I earn my money. It is immoral, and unjust. There is also a secondary point in that I think it is wrong to force people to work for their benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.