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

Originally Posted by Gary L

Good news Marty. the sanctions have only been removed from the one of the work programs. and if nobody volunteers to go on that one without sanctions, they'll put them on the mandatory one instead.



So no doubt those who are against 'slave labour' will focus on this one now. and this one will probably have to be changed too. because afterall, the point was being forced to work for no wage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...xperience.html

No, the point was to give them some work experience to make them more employable.

I see a glass half-full - you assume someone has wee'ed in the glass.

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, the point was to give them some work experience to make them more employable.

On that point Hugh both my two sons had work expierience whilst still at school not when they left i remember getting one son a job at the hospital i worked in completely voluntary.

Chris Grayling flip flopping on radio five live now.

Originally Posted by richard1960

On that point Hugh both my two sons had work expierience whilst still at school not when they left i remember getting one son a job at the hospital i worked in completely voluntary.

Yup - my kids too.

But this is to get some recent work experience on people's CVs, not something they did in year 10 or 11.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, the point was to give them some work experience to make them more employable.

Yeh, I heard that one too.

I see a glass half-full - you assume someone has wee'ed in the glass.

They have weed in the glass. it's yellow

Originally Posted by Gary L

Good news Marty. the sanctions have only been removed from the one of the work programs. and if nobody volunteers to go on that one without sanctions, they'll put them on the mandatory one instead.



So no doubt those who are against 'slave labour' will focus on this one now. and this one will probably have to be changed too. because afterall, the point was being forced to work for no wage.

and they'll be basing this argument solely on a few points.
(Loss of benefits for not wanting to work for free, minimum wage laws, not doing anything about jobs, and instead just admitting defeat and getting something out of them to keep the voters happy, boosting companies profits, loss of real jobs available due to free labour)

it should be fun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...xperience.html

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Marty it is only a good scheme if the right people are on it under the right circumstances and that wasn't the case and the government got found out. No one has a problem with a truly voluntary scheme that enables those who want to show that they could be good employee's for a given company but when your forcing people on are you really doing what is best for the age group as a whole. It is hard enough to be taken seriously when looking for a job without having a waste of space doing all they can to sabotage everyone else by being a disruptive useless article.


We will have to get to a stage in this contry where there is more then enough job oppurtunitys for everyone wanting a job before we can clearly identify the work shy brigade and deal with them, sadly that won't happen anytime soon.

The whole point of this program was for it to be aimed at 18-24yr olds many of wome come from families who have never had any workers in it .These type of children need to learn that work isn't a dirty word .They need the basic experience of getting up and facing the responsibility of going to work on a daily basis along with the consequencies of not going .If people don't go to work they get docked pay ,if people don't attend on this scheme they should get docked jsa .Learning the consequencies of not going to work is just as important as learning the job itself .All that will happen now is that more 18-24yr olds will be placed on compulsory work schemes and non attendance will definately mean they face sanctions

[mertle]

good threats removed there many reason why it need to be there from being treat badly, bullying and other reasons like they was using you as no job available.

What you think is valid reason for pulling not necessary jobcentre's. YTS scheme they had person visit you so you tell them they would do spot checks without warning.

I still not happy the scheme allows business to circumvent paying a training fee or even paying those willing token pay ontop of JSA.

The programme clearly need more work but these should been done before they stupidly released it. Guarantee interview should be relplaced guarantee JOB. If you shown your good enough there is job why the heck should it be lottery. No oversubscibing position with placements 1 for 1 system. You could get situation 5 placements all terrific workers only 1 space is it fair 4 lose out nope. Better regulation strict rules should make sure companies dont us this as abuse.

These should only take placements if job at end is there no job no placement. Strict guides to competance too. If person upto the standard it should not be just employer decision it should be collective colleagues afterall they will be working with them. So they dont trudge they was not good enough when clearly they was and got on with other staff members.

Martyn no quite simply your wrong. Would you work for nothing forced labour for JSA have no way out if issues arise. Entrapped with literagation company abusing you no job at the end if you work hard. Safety net should be implace.

I actually think the government stick approach is shocking why not put a carrot infront.

At present rules state JSA claiment can only earn think its paltry £15 surely giving them little money i there pocket for voluntaring should be done. If they doing work for nothing then surely they deserve reconision for so by bit EXTRA in there pockets.

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

The whole point of this program was for it to be aimed at 18-24yr olds many of wome come from families who have never had any workers in it .These type of children need to learn that work isn't a dirty word .They need the basic experience of getting up and facing the responsibility of going to work on a daily basis along with the consequencies of not going .If people don't go to work they get docked pay ,if people don't attend on this scheme they should get docked jsa .Learning the consequencies of not going to work is just as important as learning the job itself .All that will happen now is that more 18-24yr olds will be placed on compulsory work schemes and non attendance will definately mean they face sanctions

Sorry but this totally misses the point.

I will tell you this those who you refer to would go to these schemes if they got £30 extra in there pocket without being effecting there claim. That would be nothing to companies like tesco.

Yes they need help to get on the rung of work. Like I have always said treat people as trash they act like trash. Show respect by offering reward you will see change atitude.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by mertle

Sorry but this totally misses the point.

As long as he and others don't think that anyone that's unemployed should be made to go and work at the likes of Tescos for free, as a way of saying sorry for not having a job like them

because it means I've got to explain to them why someone they know who worked and got paid there has either had their hours reduced or been made redundant, and have now got to go and work somewhere else for free.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Gary L

As long as he and others don't think that anyone that's unemployed should be made to go and work at the likes of Tescos for free, as a way of saying sorry for not having a job like them

because it means I've got to explain to them why someone they know who worked and got paid there has either had their hours reduced or been made redundant, and have now got to go and work somewhere else for free.

yep heared the same when the proverbal hits the fan there be all hell break loose. I heared overtime been banned relation wont say which one she works reliied on this for extra money.

I actually noticed when you shop there is bit atmosphere in shops with workers morale low. They scared of there jobs naturally but then certain people would love to see there low wage job kicked out replaced workfare.

First they came ... poem is apt we will see the circumventing of minimum wage. Those who think they safe from this might think when there high tech job now minimum wage paye as new minimum pay is JSA.

There saying when you give them inch they will take a mile.

Originally Posted by Gary L

As long as he and others don't think that anyone that's unemployed should be made to go and work at the likes of Tescos for free, as a way of saying sorry for not having a job like them

because it means I've got to explain to them why someone they know who worked and got paid there has either had their hours reduced or been made redundant, and have now got to go and work somewhere else for free.

Originally Posted by mertle

yep heared the same when the proverbal hits the fan there be all hell break loose. I heared overtime been banned relation wont say which one she works reliied on this for extra money.

I actually noticed when you shop there is bit atmosphere in shops with workers morale low. They scared of there jobs naturally but then certain people would love to see there low wage job kicked out replaced workfare.

First they came ... poem is apt we will see the circumventing of minimum wage. Those who think they safe from this might think when there high tech job now minimum wage paye as new minimum pay is JSA.

There saying when you give them inch they will take a mile.

I've never heard so much crap in all my life .If either of you had bothered to research this you would realise that non of what you are saying happens ,is actually happening both of you are just making stuff up .

I'm out of here untill sanity resumes

Originally Posted by Gary L

Good news Marty. the sanctions have only been removed from the one of the work programs. and if nobody volunteers to go on that one without sanctions, they'll put them on the mandatory one instead.



So no doubt those who are against 'slave labour' will focus on this one now. and this one will probably have to be changed too. because afterall, the point was being forced to work for no wage.

and they'll be basing this argument solely on a few points.
(Loss of benefits for not wanting to work for free, minimum wage laws, not doing anything about jobs, and instead just admitting defeat and getting something out of them to keep the voters happy, boosting companies profits, loss of real jobs available due to free labour)

it should be fun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...xperience.html

That article is dated 30 Nov 2011 and is about the Autumn statement..Let's deal in the here and now..

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Well guess what:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17200688

Chief executive of Barnardo's Anne Marie Carrie, who was at the meeting on Wednesday, told BBC Radio 4's World At One: "We discussed frankly what has gone wrong in public perception about this scheme.
"Work experience is a vital lifeline for some of the most disadvantaged young people in this country. They've been failed by the education system, they've been failed by the care system and they cannot easily find employment in this tough climate."
She said she was "delighted" at the news that the sanctions would be dropped as she was worried that they could threaten the future of the scheme.

I think that this sums up what the scheme should be about nicely and if Bernardos are happy with the scheme as it is so am I.

Not being pedantic Maggy but i take it you have changed your mind about this scheme as before you were agreeing with the guardian article that called it exploitative and low paid low skilled employment , and seemed quite against it.

Is it just the barnardos statement that made you change your mind because the jobs on offer have not.?


It is easy to imagine how wizard the idea must have looked from the work and pensions minister's corner office. Work experience does make people more employable – and it should be open to benefit claimants, not just those with better-off parents who can subsidise them. But it is also easy to see how offensive it is to perform boring, menial, or simply pointless tasks for major retailers without being paid. And when it means working for employers who make billions of pounds each year (or, as at A4e, where bosses take millions in public money as bonuses), it is simply exploitative.


In post 71.

Originally Posted by richard1960

Not being pedantic Maggy but i take it you have changed your mind about this scheme as before you were agreeing with the guardian article that called it exploitative and low paid low skilled employment , and seemed quite against it.

Is it just the barnardos statement that made you change your mind because the jobs on offer have not.?


It is easy to imagine how wizard the idea must have looked from the work and pensions minister's corner office. Work experience does make people more employable – and it should be open to benefit claimants, not just those with better-off parents who can subsidise them. But it is also easy to see how offensive it is to perform boring, menial, or simply pointless tasks for major retailers without being paid. And when it means working for employers who make billions of pounds each year (or, as at A4e, where bosses take millions in public money as bonuses), it is simply exploitative.


In post 71.

It was the suggestion it was mandatory and that benefit would be removed if they didn't get what they expected from the scheme that made me cross.Also I suspect that all the large companies involved(and charities) will ensure that it is REAL works experience now the public eye is on the scheme not just stacking shelves and make do work..

I still have some reservations such as just how many placements can be offered if jobseekers actually get a job at the end of the placement and a company has less jobs/spaces available as a consequence.There must be a finite amount of actual jobs available especially as there are pockets of high unemployment around the country.Plus I'm wondering how good the 'training' aspects will be and if there are any real usable qualifications to be earned as a consequence.

And yes I do trust Barnados to have the age group concerned interests at heart.They are an organisation who deal with disadvantaged youngsters and know and understand that many 16-25 year olds from broken homes and social care are the very ones who do end up with a poor education and a lack of self confidence and do need a lot of support that is not always available from the government agencies after they are thrown off social care at 16.If they think it can work then I can get behind this scheme.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It was the suggestion it was mandatory and that benefit would be removed if they didn't get what they expected from the scheme that made me cross.Also I suspect that all the large companies involved(and charities) will ensure that it is REAL works experience now the public eye is on the scheme not just stacking shelves and make do work..

I still have some reservations such as just how many placements can be offered if jobseekers actually get a job at the end of the placement and a company has less jobs/spaces available as a consequence.There must be a finite amount of actual jobs available especially as there are pockets of high unemployment around the country.Plus I'm wondering how good the 'training' aspects will be and if there are any real usable qualifications to be earned as a consequence.

And yes I do trust Barnados to have the age group concerned interests at heart.They are an organisation who deal with disadvantaged youngsters and know and understand that many 16-25 year olds from broken homes and social care are the very ones who do end up with a poor education and a lack of self confidence and do need a lot of support that is not always available from the government agencies after they are thrown off social care at 16.If they think it can work then I can get behind this scheme.

Fair enough and you raise some very good points i would think the answer to the qestion of wether these jobs lead to worthwile qualifications will be kept a good eye on by the press.

And those that have spoken out about the scheme have done some good if this is the case.

I do know about banardos main work but wonder if they are full appraised i hope they have been better appraised then the minister chris grayling.

Lets now see how it all pans out.

Originally Posted by richard1960

Fair enough and you raise some very good points i would think the answer to the qestion of wether these jobs lead to worthwile qualifications will be kept a good eye on by the press.

And those that have spoken out about the scheme have done some good if this is the case.

I do know about banardos main work but wonder if they are full appraised i hope they have been better appraised then the minister chris grayling.

Lets now see how it all pans out.

I'm positive that Barnardos understand the issues for disadvantaged unemployed youngsters.
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/commissi...se_studies.htm
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/resource...p?pid=PUB-1467
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/resource...p?pid=PUB-1361

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It was the suggestion it was mandatory and that benefit would be removed if they didn't get what they expected from the scheme that made me cross.Also I suspect that all the large companies involved(and charities) will ensure that it is REAL works experience now the public eye is on the scheme not just stacking shelves and make do work..

I still have some reservations such as just how many placements can be offered if jobseekers actually get a job at the end of the placement and a company has less jobs/spaces available as a consequence.There must be a finite amount of actual jobs available especially as there are pockets of high unemployment around the country.Plus I'm wondering how good the 'training' aspects will be and if there are any real usable qualifications to be earned as a consequence.

And yes I do trust Barnados to have the age group concerned interests at heart.They are an organisation who deal with disadvantaged youngsters and know and understand that many 16-25 year olds from broken homes and social care are the very ones who do end up with a poor education and a lack of self confidence and do need a lot of support that is not always available from the government agencies after they are thrown off social care at 16.If they think it can work then I can get behind this scheme.

Funnily enough, the founder of the Big Issue magazine agrees with Barnados.

Times (behind a paywall)

Middle-class liberals should try a spell of unemployment before they criticise workfare

One of the worst places to be is on social security. From above you your paymasters, Her Majesty’s Government, seem ill-disposed to continue with the arrangement for a moment longer than they have to. From above you too, it would appear, vast supermarket-type businesses are desperate to suck the living blood out of you and pay you nothing in return.

Also above you, looking down at you and your predicament, are middle-class liberals who are outraged that you are disturbed in your hibernation from the job market. With great anger they shout that big business is exploiting you and that the Government is using you to boost corporate profits.

I tend to take a worm’s eye view of the situation that benefit recipients are stuck in. By a worm’s-eye view I mean what it’s like being down at the jobless ground level while these big people circulate above you, all full of advice and supposedly looking out for your best interests.

So what would I do if I were to join the ranks of the unemployed again? I would take the flimsiest offer of work even if the advantage was greater for the company that was using my labour than for unpaid me. I would take a punt at this work placement scheme, however impure or contradictory are the reasons why the Government or business want me to do it.

Why? Because life on benefit stinks. And any half-cocked exit plan is better than no exit plan at all. Maybe the work will not lead immediately to a job, but getting up and going to work in the morning must be a step nearer proper work than a step away from it.

Let me give you a few reasons why I would want out of the institutional state-sponsored poverty of social security. First, benefits are a Bastille, a life sentence for too many people. They not only imprison you, limiting your chances of liberating yourself from unemployed life, but they also cage your children, who are less likely to do well in school and get into higher education.

You will die younger and your health will be worse than that of an inhabitant of mainstream society; you will be more drawn to the stimulants of drink, drugs and tobacco; you will be more likely to suffer from mental health problems or end up in prison or excluded from school.