Sainsbury's pull out of 'Work for your benefits scheme'

[Chrysalis]

Yeah for all the stick they gave labour about spin, saying its voluntary its spin on a large scale as they have said it repeatedly now. This on top of all the lies spilled out over fraud figures etc.

[H0ND0]

I honestly can't understand what all the fuss is about now, I became employed in both youth & adult training in 1995 the same or extremely similar schemes existed even then.

Because if people repeat the phrases "slave labour" and "not voluntary" often enough, they hope the mud will stick.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Plenty of them also see political mileage in it. I understand that the prime movers behind this campaign are members of the Socialist Workers Party.



Source

Yeah right. Big businesses are pulling out of the scheme, and the minister blames the Socialist Workers' Party.

[Gary L]

Grayling is an idiot. he also claimed that they hacked his email. only they didn't. and he withdrew the allegation.

They just don't like it because they're not getting their own way.
power to the people!

Oh, and he also lied about nobody pulling out of the scam.
he really thinks nobody knows what's going on.

About 100 organisations were involved in the scheme and not one had pulled out, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

and, and..

I don’t accept the scale of the campaign is very large. It’s a small number of activists who are deliberately targeting these companies and are trying to destabilised them.

The man's deluded. it's very large and getting bigger and bigger.
3rd March is the day he needs to watch out for


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...49.html?ref=uk

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because if people repeat the phrases "slave labour" and "not voluntary" often enough, they hope the mud will stick.

If it was voluntary then there would be no need to stop peoples benefits if they don't attend.
if it was voluntary then there wouldn't be the terms "you must" and "compulsory" numerous times in the literature.

ymmv and imho.

With rights, come responsibilities - they can say no to the scheme, they can drop out in the first week, but if they drop out afterwards (and the whole point is to get people used to the idea of working and turning up on time), if there are no sanctions, what do we use to motivate those who would rather stay in bed?

btw, the "compulsory" is about another scheme, not this one - conflating the two to support your point is a little naughty, don't you think? (unless, of course, you can show us links to documentation that supports your premise about this scheme).

IDS

Here, in Britain, it is true that we have a programme which can require claimants to undertake a short period of compulsory work if we do not believe they are engaging properly in the pursuit of employment. But the programme is carefully targeted and — importantly — it is entirely separate from the voluntary Work Experience scheme which described above

[denphone]

The Prime Minister's former "family champion" Emma Harrison has announced that she is stepping down as the chairman of her welfare-to-work firm A4e.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...medium=twitter

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

With rights, come responsibilities - they can say no to the scheme, they can drop out in the first week, but if they drop out afterwards (and the whole point is to get people used to the idea of working and turning up on time), if there are no sanctions, what do we use to motivate those who would rather stay in bed?

So it's not voluntary then.

It's voluntary to go on to, and for the first week - which part of that do you find difficult to understand.

If they can't be ersed getting out of bed after that, sanctions are imposed.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by denphone

The Prime Minister's former "family champion" Emma Harrison has announced that she is stepping down as the chairman of her welfare-to-work firm A4e.

She did the right thing in the circumstances.

now can we have our money back, love?

Originally Posted by Gary L

If it was voluntary then there would be no need to stop peoples benefits if they don't attend.
if it was voluntary then there wouldn't be the terms "you must" and "compulsory" numerous times in the literature.

ymmv and imho.

so what if they are compulsory ,there's a lot of things in life that are both unpopular and compulsory but we have to do them .There are a lot of compulsory conditions attached to claiming benefits such as looking for work ,not working whilst claiming and signing on .All very inconvenient i know but they must be done in order to get the benefit ,so what if doing a little work experience is one of those conditions .

It's jeremy Kyle i feel sorry for ,he's going to run out of candidates for his show with all this work experience floating around

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's voluntary to go on to, and for the first week - which part of that do you find difficult to understand.

If they can't be ersed getting out of bed after that, sanctions are imposed.

That's just it. all that may be the case now because the secret is out. but before now it was seen as mandatory to all who were referred to the thing.

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's voluntary to go on to, and for the first week - which part of that do you find difficult to understand.

If they can't be ersed getting out of bed after that, sanctions are imposed.

I would give it up Hugh ,some people on this forum are determined to believe what the see in the banner of a red top despite documentation to the contrary

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

That's just it. all that may be the case now because the secret is out. but before now it was seen as mandatory to all who were referred to the thing.

Absolute rubbish Gary .It has never been compulsory as has been proven to you in other threads on this subject ,it is not some massive conspiracy ,try doing a bit of research and find out some facts

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

I would give it up Hugh ,some people on this forum are determined to believe what the see in the banner of a red top despite documentation to the contrary

Don't patronise him Marty. not this early on in the thread anyway

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Absolute rubbish Gary .It has never been compulsory as has been proven to you in other threads on this subject ,it is not some massive conspiracy ,try doing a bit of research and find out some facts

I have and know the facts Marty.
all that is happening now is you have a different opinion, and different knowledge to mine.

which is quite normal.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------

In the Guidance for DWP advisers, it used to say

Chapter 3

Work Experience for JSA Claimants

14
“Where you are providing support for JSA participants, which is work experience you must mandate participants to this activity. This is to avoid the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which will apply if JSA participants are not mandated.”

But surprise surprise, it has since been changed.

Before

After

I've heard that Googles cache is now showing the updated/altered/cover up one now. but if you save it to Google docs you'll see the original one with that paragraph in.

[mertle]

This is interesting piece about it

http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2012...-bagging-area/

Personally I think government running scared there fabled idea hogwash.

If they want truly system where it creates opening then why not make it totally voluntary system where people can drop out whenever. I dont buy the notion of lazy either or snobery. Most people want to work get wage yes maybe few got in rut. However give them carrot they would bite it. That means reward either guaranted job not an interview rubbish a JOB. If not then monetary incentive ie JSA+money from workplacement.

Why cant companies PAY for its workforce its training staff it crime now society wants a paypacket for its services. However little they pay at least they pay something. Surely even if they Just GET £10-£15 its better sweet FA.

It would take away stigma of cheap labour to degree. This actually worse than YTS Scheme at least poor saps got expenses and £10 quid in its pocket. Believe me when on £25 it was like nice bonus.

I am actually shocked at the snobery that persists with those who think training should come free to company who has 100bn turnover.

Someone made a point on forum surely forced labour from jobcentre violates there contract of looking for work. Anybody been there will tell you you have to sign to say you will look for work via action plan. Anybody will tell you looking for work is quite a task done properly.

I can imagine someone doing backbreaking work stacking shelves 7 nights shifts hardly going to be in great shape for interview. Believe you me 24 cans of beans aint light work. What about health & safety as these technically not employers what rights do they have.

Therefore its crazy counter productive. The only winners are Tesco's etc who get cheap labour. Fact night work pays more than dayshift work we see real reason for this scheme. Ok few will be given jobs they where in the 1980's YTS its to pacify there not cheating the system. There was many YTS who worked hard got glowing refrences but dumped as there was not any oportunities same with this scheme.

No doubt the pathetic awards will be given to say you can do this job that but useless junk not worth there paper as they become not reconised within the industry. Once the markets pick up bet those who done this will be forgoten and there efforts ignored.

Yes there does need to be system but much better way creating work and oportunities and skilled labour.