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

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

How are people getting sanctioned when its voluntary?

even the daily mail has got stuck in and they are usually anti welfare.

It doesnt hurt to criticise things now and again when they get things wrong.

This government has lost track of the real priorities they seem to think for some reason its more important just to get the long term unemployed into work and the rest is of little importance, as these placements would not have been advertised in general job papers.

As for the socialist party, thats just that fool trying to make people think its a socialist attitude and get it unfashionable. I first used the term slave labour on here in maggys thread and I hadnt seen it used anywhere else at the time, it just came to my head.

[Gary L]

[SkyFTW]

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.

So if you decide you don't want to do a job anyone else in this country would be paid minimum wage at least then its fair "sanctions are imposed"?

I think the scheme is great but pay everyone on it the minimum wage that the law says they're entitled to. Unless the unemployed are not protected by the same rights as anyone else?

An as for your comment that these are not jobs I disagree, You arrive at the same time as a fulltime employee, you go for a break the same time, you go for lunch the same time, you finish the same time, you do exactly the same work, These are jobs in all but WAGE!

There is no defense for not paying minimum wage, refusal to work once offered minimum wage should incur sanctions.

[Chrysalis]

I guess hugh means its voluntary as long as you dont mind losing some or all of your benefit

Just like if you don't turn up to sign on for good reasons, you lose some of your benefits - why should this be any different?

Out of the 34000 who have been through this Work Experience scheme, less than 200 have had any form of sanctions imposed.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Out of the 34000 who have been through this Work Experience scheme, less than 200 have had any form of sanctions imposed.

Where did you read that?

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

These letters below highlight the difference between something that is really is ‘entirely voluntary’ and something that is not. If something is ‘voluntary’ then why are Version 1 and Version 2 of these letters so different?
Version 1: One with threats of destitution benefit loss sanctions.
Version 2: For 16 to 17 years that is ‘entirely voluntary’ because it has no threats of destitution benefit loss sanctions

The point being that 'yes' it may be common knowledge now that it's voluntary for the first week. but it's been shown and proven that claimants were not told that it's voluntary for the first week. they can pull out with no risk of losing their benefits.

up until now.

http://www.consent.me.uk/workexperience/

Originally Posted by Gary L

Where did you read that?

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------



http://www.consent.me.uk/workexperience/

No Gary what it higlites is the benefit claimants responsibility to the people who provide those benefits i.e the tax payer .

I read it on the BBC website

Of the 34,200 people who took part in the scheme between its launch in January 2011 and November that year - the government says 200 had their benefits docked.

And this was on the Guardian website

Two weeks' JSA can be docked if someone leaves a work experience placement after more than a week

It would appear the sanction is the same as if they didn't turn up to sign on.

Just linked through your link, Gary, and the first documents (the version 1) states in the guidance (in the Work Experience Documents zip file, Work Experience Guidance for Advisors document)

4.The decision for a claimant to participate in Work Experience is voluntary (Jobseeker’s Directions should not be used). However, except for 16/17 year olds, participation is mandatory once the claimant has made a decision to participate (apart from the probationary week).

12. This means that as long as the participant turns up on the first day and is not dismissed for misconduct, then the employer/participant can agree that the placement is not working out and terminate it within the first week without any sanction activity

Originally Posted by Gary L

The point being that 'yes' it may be common knowledge now that it's voluntary for the first week. but it's been shown and proven that claimants were not told that it's voluntary for the first week. they can pull out with no risk of losing their benefits.

up until now.

http://www.consent.me.uk/workexperience/

That just means people have not read it through properly or listened to what they are being told probably because they are so outraged that they have to actually do something in return for free money

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

No Gary what it higlites is the benefit claimants responsibility to the people who provide those benefits i.e the tax payer .

Yeh, but you're just being biased though with your opinion.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I read it on the BBC website

And this was on the Guardian website It would appear the sanction is the same as if they didn't turn up to sign on.

and i would suspect that those who did have santions applied against them where the worst kind of long term claimant ,those who these schemes are aimed at

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Yeh, but you're just being biased though with your opinion.

how so?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I read it on the BBC website

If they got the info from Chris Grayling. it's probably a lie or highly excaggerated. like alot of the stuff he's been saying of late to do with this.

I'll see what I can find out.

what do you think of the now omitted paragraph in the guidelines I posted earlier?

Originally Posted by Gary L

If they got the info from Chris Grayling. it's probably a lie or highly excaggerated. like alot of the stuff he's been saying of late to do with this.

I'll see what I can find out.

what do you think of the now omitted paragraph in the guidelines I posted earlier?

would love to comment the letters aren't there just blank boxes

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

how so?

Because you've totally ignored the facts, and put your own prejudices first.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

would love to comment the letters aren't there just blank boxes

Probably you're browser.

Try actually reading the documents released through the FOI request - as I stated above, the original document states

4.The decision for a claimant to participate in Work Experience is voluntary (Jobseeker’s Directions should not be used). However, except for 16/17 year olds, participation is mandatory once the claimant has made a decision to participate (apart from the probationary week).

12. This means that as long as the participant turns up on the first day and is not dismissed for misconduct, then the employer/participant can agree that the placement is not working out and terminate it within the first week without any sanction activity