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

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

I have ignored your 'facts' ,and i use that term losely and yes i am prejudiced against lazy workshy people

The facts are that over 34,000 young people have gone on this scheme, over 20,000 have found jobs and are off benefits, and 200 have been sanctioned with the loss of two weeks benefits, as if they had not turned up to sign on.

I can see why this is not fair to the young unemployed.....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Sorry Hugh, but you're just not getting it. you're too focused on 'it is voluntary because it says so' bit.

so I'll explain again.

yes, it has always been voluntary up until after the first week.
but (this is the main bit to concentrate on) they didn't tell people that they could try it for a week and that they could freely pull out without any sanctions. as long as it was within that first week that they pulled out.

let me know if you got it now.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

and yes i am prejudiced against lazy workshy people

so am I.

And the only evidence of that is hearsay - let me know if you've got that now....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The facts are that over 34,000 young people have gone on this scheme, over 20,000 have found jobs and are off benefits, and 200 have been sanctioned with the loss of two weeks benefits, as if they had not turned up to sign on.

No, they're just something that someone in government has said, that's all. they're not neccessarily facts.

the other thing is. they give a percentage of how many people no longer claiming during this thing. the question is, could these people consist of people that have been sanctioned. signed off because they don't want to do the work they may have felt they were forced to do. or simply just put on another scheme that results in them not counting on the unemployment figures?

if they had got jobs the govenment would know that they have a job.
where are they now? that is the question.

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And the only evidence of that is hearsay

I'll take that as a yes, then.

[Escapee]

I would not wish to see anyone exploited, and I would not be at all surprised if there are some unscrupulous companies taking advantage of the scheme. But, the figures in this thread highlighting the number of people who found employment through the scheme are proof that the scheme has merit.

I feel the uncalled for uproar over this scheme caused by the bitter 'Lefties' have done a lot of damage to something showing positive results. The fuss caused over this scheme is nothing more than political point scoring, unfortunately at the cost of jobs for those most vulnerable in the job market.

Let's get one thing straight, 'Anyone on a government backed scheme obtaining benefits is not working for nothing'

Originally Posted by Escapee

I would not wish to see anyone exploited, and I would not be at all surprised if there are some unscrupulous companies taking advantage of the scheme. But, the figures in this thread highlighting the number of people who found employment through the scheme are proof that the scheme has merit.

I feel the uncalled for uproar over this scheme caused by the bitter 'Lefties' have done a lot of damage to something showing positive results. The fuss caused over this scheme is nothing more than political point scoring, unfortunately at the cost of jobs for those most vulnerable in the job market.

Let's get one thing straight, 'Anyone on a government backed scheme obtaining benefits is not working for nothing'

I would not object to the scheme if the supermarkets or any other employer paid the person the going rate for the job.

As i see it the employer is using the scheme for a few weeks cheap labour funded by the taxpayer that is the point i object to most.

It is wrong to class eople who object as" lefties" i would not call the Daily Mail leftie and even that paper the scourge of the benefits claimants has concerns.

[Gary L]

If you're against anything to do with anything nowadays. you're branded as an extremist by the likes of Grayling.

so if you are against companies exploiting the unemployed, companies saving and making money from the unemployed, and all the 'agencies' that make millions of pounds from the use of getting the unemployed to work for free.

then consider yourself an extremist

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

DWP blocking Freedom of Information requests.

“In line with the Department’s transparency commitments, we have previously provided
information about companies who participate in a number of our programmes that offer work experience, where we can collect this information without disproportionate cost. However, we are now invoking the exemption because it has become clear in recent weeks that there are a minority of people who appear to be seeking to undermine the goodwill of employers who are prepared to offer opportunities to unemployed people by attempting to harm those companies’ commercial interests. ”

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

Originally Posted by Gary L

DWP blocking Freedom of Information requests.



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

good

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

If you're against anything to do with anything nowadays. you're branded as an extremist by the likes of Grayling.

so if you are against companies exploiting the unemployed, companies saving and making money from the unemployed, and all the 'agencies' that make millions of pounds from the use of getting the unemployed to work for free.

then consider yourself an extremist

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

DWP blocking Freedom of Information requests.



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

blocking freedom of information or hiding their guilt ??

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

blocking freedom of information or hiding their guilt ??

Both. oh, and ignore Marty

[Chrysalis]

my question is 200 had sanctions, how many gave up the work placement? as the 200 doesnt mean much as we dont know how many pulled out.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

my question is 200 had sanctions, how many gave up the work placement? as the 200 doesnt mean much as we dont know how many pulled out.

I don't see that it makes any difference ,those that pull out will simply be placed in a more suitable placement untill they either complete the course or get sanctioned

[Gary L]

Some more evidence.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Some more evidence.

still don't see what the problem is valuable work experience is being given to unemployed people with a chance of a job at the end ,this has been the case for years so why all of a sudden is there so much fuss