Yes, she was doing an internship in a museum. She only wanted to do internships in museums. Are you happy to work and pay your taxes for some bolshy student to refuse to take any job/placement that isn't their ideal? She had been on the dole for at least twelve months by that point remember. She got a job in retail, which requires skills she would have gained at Poundland. So very much relevant. Given the current jobs market, especially in sectors that she wanted to work in, I have no doubt she'd still be on the dole now if she hadn't been forced out of her comfort zone. Whether some people deem it politically acceptable or not, that placement did her good. There are plenty more like her out there in need of the same. Incidentally, the kind of thing she was doing in the museum was very similar to the kind of internship the Swans are offering. A chance to gain valuable experience at a highly regarded employer in their chosen field.
How does doing unpaid work alter the fact that she is still unemployed? I am all for people coming off unemployment benefit, but whacky unpaid work for multinational companies is not it, do you realise that less than I think 10% of people got a job after? Hardly, stacking shelves and sweeping up is not going to give relevant skills in 2 weeks. Exactly, so why take her out of doing it to stack shelves for 2 weeks then? You can't have it all ways Lone, either this was giving her relevant skills and showing that this would be constructive, or it was right to take her away from it. As I said the exact same situation could arise from the Swans offering this, would it be then okay to take that person away from what they were doing, to go to tesco for a fortnight? Maybe by the time they could come back it would have gone to someone else.
If they were signing on and refusing to look for any other kind of work then absolutely. I've done everything from bar work to labouring to answering phones all day rather than sign on in the past. I do have a problem with people who seem to think that certain kinds of work are beneath them and it's OK to refuse opportunities to better themselves because it's not exactly what they want to do.
Lone I don't think this person would have minded if it was a real job, or with prospects of one, but it weren't its just one of these hairbrained schemes that the government has come out with
lone, poundland taking on JSA people for free means that they employ less staff on a wage. the government effectively provides them with tax payer funded workers when they should be paying people to do a job. this isnt about someone shirking work, which seems to be your counter argument, or what the daily mail would want you to think. in theory its a good policy, but thats the reality of the situation, big businesses taking hoards of JSA people for free so they employ fewer staff, the only beneficiary is the company.
thats right. If pound land has a job for a shelf stacker then instead of using any tom dick or Jane employ someone who wants to be a shelf stacker on a proper wage....DO NOT WORK FOR FREE you will be playing into the governments hands. The more they can get people to work for free the more they can manufacture the real unemployment figures and blame everyone else for the state of the country.....I would never work for any government scheme if i was in that position....The job club was bollocks and did very little to get people the right job for them.......In Swansea this last week gone there was 15 apprenticeship jobs up for grabs....over 900 applied ...so that tells you the state we are in in wales that there are no jobs out there for the masses...
If you tried to tell me to do work for nothing (Other than charity work) I'd tell you in no uncertain terms where you can go! Of course if you want to slave for the Capitalist, then be my guest................
These people are not working for free, they are earning their benefits. That is how I see it and I have always thought that people on the Dole should be given unpaid work to make them earn that money the Gov't is giving them.
But with that logic it will stop companies from paying wages to people genuinely looking for work. And it would be akin to prison press gangs IMO . Something as well is what rights do these slaves, I mean unpaid workers have ? Do they have entitlement to lunch breaks? What happens if they are involved in an accident ? It just appears that this is all a can of worms
A lot of what you say there Dai is very true. Unfortunately, most youngsters today want a job that`s "modern & trendy". i`m not saying that they (the youngsters) think, or believe, that so - called menial jobs are beneath them. But that`s the impression that they give. When I left school at 15 in the early part of the 60`s, jobs were two a penny, you could leave a job on Friday & start a new one on the Monday. Sadly those days are long gone. I along with a few others on here I would think, worked for the same organisation for almost 40 years, doing what would now be called "menial" jobs. Again, people staying in the same job for the rest of their working lives is past, not least because firms go bust or nowadays "reorganise" and "restructure" their workforce. Just my thoughts, for what it`s worth, I`ll get my coat & put my hard hat on. A final word, Blair carried on from Thatcher in urging everyone to go to university, to better themselves. When people "better" themselves nowadays, it usually means anything other than doing physical work i.e. an office job, or banking or suchlike. Most of the politicians today have never been in the real world of work. They go to uni then get jobs as media researchers or as political assistants and speechwriters or strategists, before they become MP`s, then they tell us all what to do. Unfortunately, there`s not enough jobs to go around, and with raising the retiremant age there`s going to be even less. So to counteract that they are putting up the school leaving age, meaning more chaos in schools for those that don`t want to be there. Hey ho.
I left school on the Friday and started an apprenticeship with the NCB on the following Monday in the 60's as well......there was plenty of employment about then....today there are hundreds applying for every job that gives you a career.......I would be bored stiff if all i was offered was a shelf stacking job or a cleaner as those jobs were not what i wanted......when thatcher closed the pits i could not find any jobs that payed enough money to live and i ended up joining the royal Navy.....there are no good well paid jobs available today and when one does appear there are hundreds and hundreds going for it. My son i remember came out of the army and he wrote over 50 letters of applications for jobs and out of that lot he got two responses bot thanking him for applying but sorry you were unsuccessful....the others did not even reply, .....Its so hard for youngsters today to find a meaningful job and all we hear from governments is they are lazy and do not want to work.....what rubbish..a tiny amount are scroungers and not the vast majority who would love to work....
If she was collecting from the dole then she wasn't being unpaid. We should at least make them earn that money put into their bank accounts. Whilst there is maneuver for companies to abuse the system, it should be the Gov't to come up with a way to prevent this. Really the Gov't should have restricted working hours in the private industry to 10 hours per week and maximum of 10 people per 1,000 employed by that same company. The ten hours should be done in two working days of each other though so it wouldn't be two hours per day per week, but instead 5 hours per day on a Monday and Tuesday, or Thursday or Friday etc. And thyen each person should not be allowed to work for the same company for more than one two months. The way the dole system works is just untenable, they should be contributing back to society in some way if they are going to be given money by the tax payer. It really isn't slave labour because the state is the one paying their "wages" (dole). The restriction on hours and the amount of people they can employ like this make it very inefficient for the company. They will be retraining quite often and that is rather expensive, whilst 10 hours is short it does provide the company some work resource but not enough for important projects. The person collecting dole money would then have a choice, continue doing the ten hours per week for LESS than minimum wage rates or actually try and get any job they can. And the company will naturally employ the cheaper alternative of creating real jobs because it would be cheaper for them to pay a part-time/full-time employee instead of constantly paying out to retrain people who are doing very short hours.
VRD, you advocate the taxpayer funding profit making companies to have free workers? how would you feel if you were a paid shelf stacker at poundland and lost your job because your boss found he could get people on JSA to come in and do your job? it is thankfully illegal for this to happen, and rightly so. you say there should be a limit of say 10 people max per 1000 in the company, but the figures are something like 2.5m unemployed to 30m employed. the numbers just dont stack up (no pun intended). full time jobs are hard enough to come by as it is, and this policy just makes it harder.
What you are really advocating is more public sector/council workers (ie state funded) There are plenty of people on the dole who would love to have a proper job - at the appropriate pay scale.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928 no training, used as free labour, what a surprise. the intentions are good but the reality is there in black and white.
