Unpaid work...yes or no? BBC plugs it

[Kizzy]

Really conflicted on this issue, whereas on the one hand I agree with community, civil response to social issues and the volunteer sector, is unpaid work justified?

Are you only in fact doing what you pay council tax for, or doing some poor joe out of a job? I can see an argument for green areas, childrens play areas, neighbourhood watch , litter picks that kind of thing ... but training people up for road maintenance? this is just unpaid work.

The majority tory panel think it a great idea but is it... where will it end, why 'employ' anyone?

( Should you have an issue with the source feel free to find your own)

http://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/10/bbc-turns-daily-politics-ad-campaign-unpaid-work-tories-video/

[Vicky.]

I do not see why anyone should be expected to do a job that would otherwise be paid, for free. Nor can I think of any reason ANYONE (bar employers looking to get slave labour) would be for it? In a day where jobs are very scarce, this obsession with getting people to work for nothing is pretty insane really.

Also even cleaning play areas and such...if people weren't doing it for free, councils would need to pay someone to do it. So even these seemingly innocent community placements are taking away real jobs :/

Litter picking and such tends to be done by people on community service also. So not sure why this would need to be a 'wider public' thing tbh

[Kizzy]

I know, as if 'apprenticeships' and the DWPs 'work experience' weren't harnessing enough free/pittance jobs they suggest semi skilled labour be done gratis ON TOP of the job you already have!

What is meant by 'economy'?.... My understanding was you earn money and spend it, that contributes to the economy, so if nobody gets anything except hand to mouth money seriously what happens?
Or is it only going to be a very small percentage that contributes to the economy and the rest of us drones just about survive if we're lucky?

No wonder the service sector is the only expanding area, we are hurtling back to the days of upstairs downstairs, and we're complicit!

Unbelievable.

[ebandit]

...exactly! min wage is just that..........well? unless you're unlucky enough

to be jobless...............................

Mark L

[Vicky.]

Apprenticeships are a farce now too.

Apprentice 'sandwich artist' and such.

**** off :joker:

Any excuse to not pay someone a real wage. These companies should be ashamed of themselves.


Not slagging apprenticeships in general here, just what they have turned into. I do think that apprenticeships in skilled/semi-skilled work are a decent enough idea as its learning on the job instead of college courses and such. When you have 'apprentice bar staff' and such though...just no

[ebandit]

....while on a scheme............owner of business to which i was assigned was

unhappy i described my position as 'slave labour' to his face..................LOL

shoulda paid a wage.................

....never lasted long there.............out! when i declined cleaning the bog

Mark L

[Beso]

Maybe instead of over exuberant jobsworths fining you for flicking a fag you should be made to do a weeks worth off cleaning and clearing areas of litter etc.

Maybe instead of meaningless road traffic offences that carry a points and fine conviction you should be made to do road maintanence work.....

**** being made to work for nothing..they can shove that right up where the sun dont shine.

[Kizzy]

Apprenticeships are a farce now too.

Apprentice 'sandwich artist' and such.

**** off :joker:

Any excuse to not pay someone a real wage. These companies should be ashamed of themselves.


Not slagging apprenticeships in general here, just what they have turned into. I do think that apprenticeships in skilled/semi-skilled work are a decent enough idea as its learning on the job instead of college courses and such. When you have 'apprentice bar staff' and such though...just no

Exactly, my daughter saw one for apprentice shelf stacker...I mean come on!
:fist:

[Kizzy]

Maybe instead of over exuberant jobsworths fining you for flicking a fag you should be made to do a weeks worth off cleaning and clearing areas of litter etc.

Maybe instead of meaningless road traffic offences that carry a points and fine conviction you should be made to do road maintanence work.....

**** being made to work for nothing..they can shove that right up where the sun dont shine.

Again that is just doing someone out of a job, they used to have community service, that fell by the wayside as the would rather fine someone who has no money to begin with and get some twonk to do the cleaning for nowt.

[Beso]

Again that is just doing someone out of a job, they used to have community service, that fell by the wayside as the would rather fine someone who has no money to begin with and get some twonk to do the cleaning for nowt.


Have you seen the state of the streets and roads?..theres plenty work for all..both payed and for those paying retribution. Dont know if there is enough shovels left though cause the local council run workers seem to need them for leaning on.

[Kizzy]

Have you seen the state of the streets and roads?..theres plenty work for all..both payed and for those paying retribution. Dont know if there is enough shovels left though cause the local council run workers seem to need them for leaning on.

Of course I have, that is due to lack of funds you would take a job off someone and give it to those you feel owe some kind of civil debt?

And then where are the low skilled/ unskilled jobs?
It's similar to that silly mail mantra 'jobs they won't do', as an argument for eastern Europeans being recruited for warehouse work... So why are young people being sanctioned for not being able to find a job or being offered shelf stacking 'apprenticeships?

[Beso]

Of course I have, that is due to lack of funds you would take a job off someone and give it to those you feel owe some kind of civil debt?

And then where are the low skilled/ unskilled jobs?
It's similar to that silly mail mantra 'jobs they won't do', as an argument for eastern Europeans being recruited for warehouse work... So why are young people being sanctioned for not being able to find a job or being offered shelf stacking 'apprenticeships?

I clearly stated that there is enough work for both paid workers and the ones owing a debt to the community..surprised its not been jumped on more considering the lack of funding.

Got to scratch your head at the lack of funding though considering these moronic on the spot fines dished out on a daily basis. Wonder where that money goes!


Look at the QE2 bridge that connects kent and essex..brits cross that every day but pay a ****ing french company for the pleasure of paying £4.50 a time....seriously..what the actual **** even a weeks worth of that money would go a long way to improve a loads of stuff, or at least pay these muppets demanding up to 4000 pound a day for filling some short term nhs roles..

[Tom4784]

I'm against unpaid work that isn't charity based. There's no justification for major businesses offering unpaid work, if there's work to be done then the worker should be paid for it. It's basically exploitation of a vulnerable demographic of people.

I also agree that apprenticeships are getting ridiculous as well, apprenticeships for unskilled work are basically a money saving exercise for these businesses and it has no long term benefit for apprentice.

Apprenticeships should only be allowed for skilled or trade based work or with placements that can offer you an actual career.

[Beso]

I'm against unpaid work that isn't charity based. There's no justification for major businesses offering unpaid work, if there's work to be done then the worker should pay for it. It's basically exploitation of a vulnerable demographic of people.

I also agree that apprenticeships are getting ridiculous as well, apprenticeships for unskilled work are basically a money saving exercise for these businesses and it has no long term benefit for apprentice.

Apprenticeships should only be allowed for skilled or trade based work or with placements that can offer you an actual career.



The apprentice thing is just a statistic the tories are going to be bumping on about to.prove how wonderful they are..load of bolloxy bollox.

[smudgie]

Didn't these people volunteer to fill in minor pot holes, they only do the little ones in country lanes etc, leaving the big jobs to the paid workers.

[Kizzy]

I clearly stated that there is enough work for both paid workers and the ones owing a debt to the community..surprised its not been jumped on more considering the lack of funding.

Got to scratch your head at the lack of funding though considering these moronic on the spot fines dished out on a daily basis. Wonder where that money goes!


Look at the QE2 bridge that connects kent and essex..brits cross that every day but pay a ****ing french company for the pleasure of paying £4.50 a time....seriously..what the actual **** even a weeks worth of that money would go a long way to improve a loads of stuff, or at least pay these muppets demanding up to 4000 pound a day for filling some short term nhs roles..


So are the fines moronic, why then is it seen as a debt to the community that MUST be paid?

Well a French company built it... Why don't we build our own things with our own people?

Answers on a postcard to, 2 many fingers in pies A T Westminster.

[Kizzy]

Didn't these people volunteer to fill in minor pot holes, they only do the little ones in country lanes etc, leaving the big jobs to the paid workers.

All areas have budgets whether served by major or minor roads, if this robbing peter to pay paul is tolerated in certain areas who's to say it won't be exploited?

[Beso]

So are the fines moronic, why then is it seen as a debt to the community that MUST be paid?

Well a French company built it... Why don't we build our own things with our own people?

Answers on a postcard to, 2 many fingers in pies A T Westminster.

I can answer the first question....its because we would see where the duty was paid rather than wonder what the heck happened to the money...the 2nd one...we paid them to build it then sold it back....third bit...more like fingers in little boys.

[Northern Monkey]

What Vicky and Dezzy said.Totally agree.An apprenticeship should give you a meaningful skill to take for life like a plumber or electrician or gas fitter that could enable you to set up your own business if you ever needed to.
Unpaid work I don't agree with either.I'm not against the retired pensioner volunteering in the charity shop to give them something to do but anything that requires a skill or hard manual labour should always be paid imo.

[user104658]

I'm sure my place was offering "customer service apprenticeships" at one point... Otherwise known as being a cashier for less than minimum wage. I don't think it lasted long / ever got off the ground, though... We have enough trouble getting actual paid staff to stick around longer than 6 months once they realise how much **** they have to deal with :joker:

[arista]

"the volunteer sector, is unpaid work justified?"


Of course it is Kizzy
Helping a Local Community
is Essential.
By working Un Paid
you give Quality time,
Making Britain Great.


Young Tibbers Need To Learn THIS

[arista]

"I'm against unpaid work that isn't charity based. There's no justification for major businesses offering unpaid work,"

No Dezzy
Many Charity's are Corrupt
taking so much for fecking Admin?


A Young Person
gets Experience
that matters more than Dezzy's Politics
with respect.


Life In The City

[DemolitionRed]

All areas have budgets whether served by major or minor roads, if this robbing peter to pay paul is tolerated in certain areas who's to say it won't be exploited?

Remember, Cameron cut local funding by a massive 40%. Councils are struggling because the men at the top have found better things to do with tax payers money.

[arista]

Remember, Cameron cut local funding by a massive 40%. Councils are struggling because the men at the top have found better things to do with tax payers money.


Kizzy is well aware
that some councils have been cut back,
so am I.


Yes DR
those Nuke Defenses
are costing Billions of Pounds.

[DemolitionRed]

"I'm against unpaid work that isn't charity based. There's no justification for major businesses offering unpaid work,"

No Dezzy
Many Charity's are Corrupt
taking so much for fecking Admin?


A Young Person
gets Experience
that matters more than Dezzy's Politics
with respect.


Life In The City

Most employers will not use charity work for a CV and so in many cases, it won't be accepted as experience.

[arista]

Most employers will not use charity work for a CV and so in many cases, it won't be accepted as experience.

Yes that's another
Reason to avoid them.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes that's another
Reason to avoid them.

Avoid who?

[Cherie]

Most employers will not use charity work for a CV and so in many cases, it won't be accepted as experience.

Totally disagree, it depends where you place yourself, I've seen a number of volunteers at my workplace end up getting employed, as long as you place yourself in the area you want to work in, get a qualification while volunteering or if you already have one, when a job comes up you have your foot in the door, management are more likely to employ you over an unknown, this doesn't work for every sector but it can't be dismissed across the board. Doing unpaid volunteering can be a stepping stone, as long as you aren't volunteering 5 days a week 9 to 5 and there is an end goal it can be a useful way of getting employed

[user104658]

If it's something that simply isn't going to get done otherwise and it is truly VOLUNTARY (forcing people into unpaid work with coercion and threats is not voluntary) then it's totally up to the individual. For example, a local mum here volunteers as a classroom / playground assistant at the primary school because she enjoys it, and it's been a godsend for them. The funding isn't there for someone to do it paid so it's not an issue of there being a paid position taken away.

If it's "you must volunteer or else" from the DWP, or having people work for free on things that should clearly be paid (like road maintenance ffs) then I am entirely against it.

And as mentioned before, I am against using cheap apprenticeships with meaningless qualifications in place of real minimum wage jobs. It's literally nothing more than an excuse to hire young people for less than minimum wage, and makes a mockery of the concepts of both minimum wage AND real apprenticeships with real qualifications at the end.

[DemolitionRed]

Totally disagree, it depends where you place yourself, I've seen a number of volunteers at my workplace end up getting employed, as long as you place yourself in the area you want to work in, get a qualification while volunteering or if you already have one, when a job comes up you have your foot in the door, management are more likely to employ you over an unknown, this doesn't work for every sector but it can't be dismissed across the board. Doing unpaid volunteering can be a stepping stone, as long as you aren't volunteering 5 days a week 9 to 5 and there is an end goal it can be a useful way of getting employed

If you get a qualification that's a whole other thing. If you prove yourself as a volunteer and that company is genuinely looking to take on a paid member of staff, then a preferred method of in house recruitment is going to probably swing in your favour.

I work for a very large nationwide company and we never accept references for voluntary work, even if that voluntary work was about getting work experience for the position they are applying for. I've never really understood why but I know its not unusual.

[Kizzy]

Kizzy is well aware
that some councils have been cut back,
so am I.


Yes DR
those Nuke Defenses
are costing Billions of Pounds.


Stick to expressing your own opinion, not mine thanks.

[Kizzy]

Totally disagree, it depends where you place yourself, I've seen a number of volunteers at my workplace end up getting employed, as long as you place yourself in the area you want to work in, get a qualification while volunteering or if you already have one, when a job comes up you have your foot in the door, management are more likely to employ you over an unknown, this doesn't work for every sector but it can't be dismissed across the board. Doing unpaid volunteering can be a stepping stone, as long as you aren't volunteering 5 days a week 9 to 5 and there is an end goal it can be a useful way of getting employed

DR specifically said charity work not volunteering, there is a difference.
Charity work is not SMART, whereas unpaid internships, NVQ placements that sort of thing are.

[arista]

Stick to expressing your own opinion, not mine thanks.


OK Kizzy

[arista]

"It's literally nothing more than an excuse to hire young people for less than minimum wage, and makes....."


TS there is nothing wrong with that
no young folks are harmed in any way.


TS Feel The Force

[arista]

Avoid who?

A Charity that is taking
a corrupt amount for Admin,


Thats who DR.
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=316713

[Cherie]

DR specifically said charity work not volunteering, there is a difference.
Charity work is not SMART, whereas unpaid internships, NVQ placements that sort of thing are.

any kind of voluteering is charity work isn't it? all I am saying is that if people used their brain and placed themselves in an a role where they could see themselves eventually getting a job it unpaid work can pay off, so all unpaid work is not a good or a bad thing, as with everything there are varying shades of grey, not sure why you need the need to speak for DR we had already covered this all by ourselves Mum

[Cherie]

Also I think I have seen it all now a left leaning member saying doing charity work is not a good thing :umm2: what happened to our social conscience ....

[Kizzy]

any kind of voluteering is charity work isn't it? all I am saying is that if people used their brain and placed themselves in an a role where they could see themselves eventually getting a job it unpaid work can pay off, so all unpaid work is not a good or a bad thing, as with everything there are varying shades of grey, not sure why you need the need to speak for DR we had already covered this all by ourselves Mum

No, not unless you are working for or on behalf of a charity, that's charity work.
I just wanted clarification is all, if there is the chance of a job at the end of it then I could see a reasoning as part of ongoing training/education ( although even unpaid internships are frowned upon) but this isn't the proposal here is it?
There is no job offer, just minimal training and a hiviz.

[Cherie]

No, not unless you are working for or on behalf of a charity, that's charity work.
I just wanted clarification is all, if there is the chance of a job at the end of it then I could see a reasoning as part of ongoing training/education ( although even unpaid internships are frowned upon) but this isn't the proposal here is it?
There is no job offer, just minimal training and a hiviz.



It's a difficult one, if it is putting someone out of a paid job, on the other hand if someone on job seekers had to give something back to the community say one day a week, they can gain valuable life lessons which can be taken into future employment, working as part of a team, building relationships, so it's not all about a job offer but something that can help the person in the future rather than sitting watching JK, so its a toughie and it depends on the work on offer and whether the person is being exploited or whether there is a genuine rationale behind it to help the person into work.

[Kizzy]

[/B]

It's a difficult one, if it is putting someone out of a paid job, on the other hand if someone on job seekers had to give something back to the community say one day a week, they can gain valuable life lessons which can be taken into future employment, working as part of a team, building relationships, so it's not all about a job offer but something that can help the person in the future rather than sitting watching JK, so its a toughie and it depends on the work on offer and whether the person is being exploited or whether there is a genuine rationale behind it to help the person into work.

It's nothing to do with jobseekers either, maybe have a look at the link in the OP you're just clutching at straws here.

[Cherie]

It's nothing to do with jobseekers either, maybe have a look at the link in the OP you're just clutching at straws here.

clutching at what straws :umm2: my bad I didn't read the link..

nah I wouldn't subscribe to that at all, sorry I pay enough tax not working for free on top, I await to see how many MPs and whether May will be out doing her bit though

if people actually do this it will just lead to more cuts in funding...

[Beso]

DR specifically said charity work not volunteering, there is a difference.
Charity work is not SMART, whereas unpaid internships, NVQ placements that sort of thing are.

Stick to what you have said not what dr has said.:hehe:

[smudgie]

The article is a load of tosh, I thought it was showing you the actual people doing the actual job, not the politics show discussing it.
The man shown actually doing the volunteer work was neither looking for payment or employment. He was happy to have something to do with his time whilst helping his community at the same time.
The council paid for all the gear he needed so he wasn't out of pocket.
Is this really any different to volunteers working in libraries to stop them shutting down, or people going into school to help out with reading etc..it's called community spirit, something to be praised not used as political propaganda.

[Brillopad]

Anyone that chooses to do unpaid work, effectively charity work, are free to do so. Admirable for those doing it purely through choice.

I also feel that those on benefits should be expected to do 'unpaid' work in return for their benefits. It should be a condition of claiming benefit.

[ebandit]

I also feel that those on benefits should be expected to do 'unpaid' work in return for their benefits. It should be a condition of claiming benefit.

ok but surely? min wage per hr worked should still apply..............

Mark L

[Kizzy]

The article is a load of tosh, I thought it was showing you the actual people doing the actual job, not the politics show discussing it.
The man shown actually doing the volunteer work was neither looking for payment or employment. He was happy to have something to do with his time whilst helping his community at the same time.
The council paid for all the gear he needed so he wasn't out of pocket.
Is this really any different to volunteers working in libraries to stop them shutting down, or people going into school to help out with reading etc..it's called community spirit, something to be praised not used as political propaganda.

It does show the guy doing it, he was happy to do it he wouldn't have offered otherwise, although that's not strictly the point.
You can't effectively close down a road like you can a library too.
This is what I'm trying to put across if they are relying on volunteers to do community based work then how is anyone in the community going to earn a living? :/

[Kizzy]

Stick to what you have said not what dr has said.:hehe:

I'll do what I like :idc:

[Beso]

I'll do what I like :idc:

And so will everyone else hen.

[Tom4784]

Anyone that chooses to do unpaid work, effectively charity work, are free to do so. Admirable for those doing it purely through choice.

I also feel that those on benefits should be expected to do 'unpaid' work in return for their benefits. It should be a condition of claiming benefit.

I disagree with this. To claim any kind of unemployment benefit you have to provide 35 hours worth of jobsearch a week so where would you fit a 'voluntary' position? Unless you are suggesting that unemployed people should work longer hours than full time employers for a pittance?

Unpaid work should be a choice, not something forced on the unemployed when it won't benefit anyone but the companies using them for free labour.

[Beso]

Imagine having to get up in the morning to do an unpaid job to get your benefits for not having a job..:joker:

[Kizzy]

And so will everyone else hen.

Go for it chicken :)

[smudgie]

It does show the guy doing it, he was happy to do it he wouldn't have offered otherwise, although that's not strictly the point.
You can't effectively close down a road like you can a library too.
This is what I'm trying to put across if they are relying on volunteers to do community based work then how is anyone in the community going to earn a living? :/

Nobody has lost their job, the wage earners are doing the bigger jobs, the community volunteers are taking the pressure off their workload in this case.
They are only filling in the piddly ones, big enough to annoy motorists and cyclists but not top of the list for major works. Win win I reckon.
As long as it is 100% volunteer work and no pressure on people to do it then I am all for it.

[Beso]

Go for it chicken :)

You should have just said cock.:joker:

[Tom4784]

Imagine having to get up in the morning to do an unpaid job to get your benefits for not having a job..:joker:

Silly, isn't it?

If it was a position that would result in a job then I could understand but I don't understand why we should force the unemployed to work for their benefits in a position that likely won't lead to a job or teach any marketable skills. If they are expected to work than their unemployment benefits should match that of the wage they'd be paid if their unpaid work was an actual job. Employing someone to only pay them the amount they'd receive on benefits would be considered illegal because it's nowhere near being close to minimum wage.

[user104658]

If able bodied people were to work for minimum wage to earn the amount of their benefits, it would only amount to 9 hours. Yet they want to have people working 30+ hours for it?

[Kizzy]

Nobody has lost their job, the wage earners are doing the bigger jobs, the community volunteers are taking the pressure off their workload in this case.
They are only filling in the piddly ones, big enough to annoy motorists and cyclists but not top of the list for major works. Win win I reckon.
As long as it is 100% volunteer work and no pressure on people to do it then I am all for it.

I didn't say anyone had lost their job, piddly little roads are paid for just as much as major roads, it's unfair for semi rural areas to rely on volunteers and their road maintenance budget be used elsewhere.
Social care is being scapegoated and used as an emotional lever to suggest they need the budget that is wrong, they are playing on the good nature of communities while siphoning off funding and corroding earning potential at the same time.

[Kizzy]

You should have just said cock.:joker:

Right this is getting silly, I'm done egging you on :)

[Cherie]

If people want to give something back the community, maybe look after their elderly neighbours, and look out for them or volunteer at your local hospital shop or radio or something that isn't taking a job that someone would get paid for and for which we pay our taxes away, filling potholes however small is a job for the highways agency, why do we pay road tax if some volunteer is going to do it, same with cutting grass verges etc,

[Brillopad]

I disagree with this. To claim any kind of unemployment benefit you have to provide 35 hours worth of jobsearch a week so where would you fit a 'voluntary' position? Unless you are suggesting that unemployed people should work longer hours than full time employers for a pittance?

Unpaid work should be a choice, not something forced on the unemployed when it won't benefit anyone but the companies using them for free labour.

In which case their job search should be reduced depending on how many hours they work.

[Beso]

Right this is getting silly, I'm done egging you on :)

:joker:

[Tom4784]

In which case their job search should be reduced depending on how many hours they work.

So you want them to spend less time actually looking for a job so that they can work an unpaid job that ultimately won't benefit them in the long run?

[Brillopad]

So you want them to spend less time actually looking for a job so that they can work an unpaid job that ultimately won't benefit them in the long run?

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

[DemolitionRed]

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

The government already tried this. The sort of jobs they gave them were shelf stacking in supermarkets. This meant that supermarkets could employ less salaried shelf stackers meaning more people became unemployed and less jobs were advertised and of course, it meant the supermarkets got free labour. If that person on JSA refused to stack shelves, they simply got their benefits stopped.... It was a win win for the Tories. If benefits were stopped they were no longer classed as unemployed and if they stacked shelves for their benefits, they were no longer classed as unemployed.

The trouble with that is, no matter which way you look at it, it is slave labour.

[Beso]

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.



Do you have a time limit for this idea? Like is it until they find a job or is it just for a couple of weeks?

[ebandit]

...with much experience of signing on i can add............never at any time was i expected to jobsearch for 35 hrs.............fulfilling my agreement only takes a few
mins a day

when under work programme and doing 'voluntary' work the 30 hr working week includes time for organised jobsearch + jobcentre advisors make allowance accepting
a reduced jobsearch diary

Mark L

[Tom4784]

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

So you'd want to force someone into a full time 'voluntary' position just to earn their pennies from benefits? Like TS said, you can't expect someone to work a full time unpaid position when benefits would typically only cover 9 hours of work.

There is no real upside to it, the kind of experience from those types of jobs don't get you very far, few of these unpaid positions lead to actual employment and I'm guessing the unemployed will be depressed that they are working full time hours to receive a fraction that someone who is employed would earn.

The only people it benefits are the companies since it's free labour for them.

[Brillopad]

The government already tried this. The sort of jobs they gave them were shelf stacking in supermarkets. This meant that supermarkets could employ less salaried shelf stackers meaning more people became unemployed and less jobs were advertised and of course, it meant the supermarkets got free labour. If that person on JSA refused to stack shelves, they simply got their benefits stopped.... It was a win win for the Tories. If benefits were stopped they were no longer classed as unemployed and if they stacked shelves for their benefits, they were no longer classed as unemployed.

The trouble with that is, no matter which way you look at it, it is slave labour.

You would think they could find them something that would not take jobs from others - that is pointless.

What about work in charity shops for example , I have seen several shops advertising for volunteers. I know hospitals use volunteers for help with admin as another example. I'm sure there must be quite a bit out there if everyone concerned made an effort.

[Brillopad]

So you'd want to force someone into a full time 'voluntary' position just to earn their pennies from benefits? Like TS said, you can't expect someone to work a full time unpaid position when benefits would typically only cover 9 hours of work.

There is no real upside to it, the kind of experience from those types of jobs don't get you very far, few of these unpaid positions lead to actual employment and I'm guessing the unemployed will be depressed that they are working full time hours to receive a fraction that someone who is employed would earn.

The only people it benefits are the companies since it's free labour for them.

I didn't necessarily say full-time, but whatever work they can find them with regard to things like childcare etc for single parents. Surely it doesn't have to be that complicated. 9 hours would be better than nothing.

[Tozzie]

no one should have to work for absolutely nothing. I'm all for people who are able bodied and well enough to be made to earn their government handouts though. If the 'living wage' is £7.30 or whatever it is and the unemployed get £73 a week then they should be told they have to do some kind of work for 10 hours a week. This would get the people who really don't want to work when they are quite capable of doing so off their butts and earning their own money. Obviously I know not everyone on unemployment benefit wants to be and would prefer to go out to work but its the idle bums that annoy me.

[Cherie]

I didn't necessarily say full-time, but whatever work they can find them with regard to things like childcare etc for single parents. Surely it doesn't have to be that complicated. 9 hours would be better than nothing.

I think it would be quite productive if jobseekers could be placed one day a week in an area the have an interest in working in, any experience gained is going to help job chances more than doing 35 hours of applications

[Brillopad]

I think it would be quite productive if jobseekers could be placed one day a week in an area the have an interest in working in, any experience gaobed is going to help job chances more than doing 35 hours of applications

I agree Cherie - it's experience that counts and if someone is unemployed for some time one day a week could amount to a reasonable amount of experience and just give them the edge.

[Cherie]

I really need to check my posts before hitting submit :joker:

[Tom4784]

I didn't necessarily say full-time, but whatever work they can find them with regard to things like childcare etc for single parents. Surely it doesn't have to be that complicated. 9 hours would be better than nothing.

That's all well and good if it's in areas that can provide good experience and skills but most of these work placements don't offer that. It's all unskilled work and cheap labour in sectors that don't tend to value experience that much.

As it stands now, it's just a way to force people to work for a pittance in a role that won't ever lead to anything for them.

[Cherie]

...with much experience of signing on i can add............never at any time was i expected to jobsearch for 35 hrs.............fulfilling my agreement only takes a few
mins a day

when under work programme and doing 'voluntary' work the 30 hr working week includes time for organised jobsearch + jobcentre advisors make allowance accepting
a reduced jobsearch diary

Mark L

Job searching for 35 hours a week did seem a bit of a reach tbf :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Job searching for 35 hours a week did seem a bit of a reach tbf :laugh:

As far as I know (this is from what I have been told so may not be entirely accurate) when on universal credit you have to prove you are jobsearching 35 hours a week. I know years back they used to lie and say you had to sign up to the universal jobmatch site and log EVERYTHING you did and if it didn't add up to enough time they could (and did) sanction you off the back of it. Regardless of how many jobs applied for and such. It seemed really silly as...come on...what can you realistically do to search for that long every week when looking on the internet takes seconds and there are next to no jobs anyway. Yes a decent application can take a few hours, but there are not enough positions to spend all day everyday writing cover letters and tailoring your CV.

[Vicky.]

Also the workfare rules are STUPID given you are not allowed to do college courses and stuff (you know, things that could actually help longer term unemployed people to find work?) as apparently you would not have enough time to search for work if your course is (I believe it was..) 16 hours per week+

[Cherie]

Also the workfare rules are STUPID given you are not allowed to do college courses and stuff (you know, things that could actually help longer term unemployed people to find work?) as apparently you would not have enough time to search for work if your course is (I believe it was..) 16 hours per week+

As most uni courses are about 16 hours, I guess you would be considered a student and not eligible for jobseekers if your course was more than 16 hours a week though

[Vicky.]

As most uni courses are about 16 hours, I guess you would be considered a student and not eligible for jobseekers if your course was more than 16 hours a week though

You can't get maintenance loans though for the part time courses AFAIK. And its fit to send someone to work 30+ hours per week for free and still claim they have time to jobseek? Seems...daft :laugh:

[Cherie]

You can't get maintenance loans though for the part time courses AFAIK. And its fit to send someone to work 30+ hours per week for free and still claim they have time to jobseek? Seems...daft :laugh:

I'm not advocating sending anyone to work for 30 hours for free, I don't think a day a week work experience would kill anyone though, and with regard to job seeking I refer you to a mark L's post

[user104658]

By the official rules you DO have to jobsearch "full time". The caveat being that if you are tech savvy and able bodied you can obviously do it much more quickly than that. With my brief experience of JSA (about 8 years ago) it definitely stated 35 hours searching per week but, at least back then, they were understanding of how unrealistic that was in that area. Sure you can probably search / apply for jobs all day if you live in or near a major city... When you live in a dirty backwater in the North of England (as we were at the time) you could apply for literally EVERY job going in the area within a couple of hours, and sometimes nothing new at all would come up for weeks :joker:

[Cherie]

I would add that a day a weeks work experience would help people with no previous work experience or people who want to change their job into work, it wouldn't be that useful for people who have lost a job and are seeking similar employment.

[Kizzy]

Send people to work for their jobseekers... Was there ever a more oxymoronic sentence uttered?

What of travel costs incurred and/or child care, should they perhaps walk however far it is, maybe carrying a 'drain on society' placard?

[Vicky.]

Could always pay people for this one days work that can be found from nowhere if unpaid. Obviously take some of the wages off their jobseekers. Hell a day on minimum wage is the same as a weeks jobseekers rate anyway thinking about it

I was having an argument on another site about workfare actually (though this thread is not about workfare..seems to have veered that way though) where someone claimed the 'lazy bastards' would get used to being up through the day and such and it would prepare them for work in the future. But...giving them the same position but PAID would have the exact same effect, and they would have the added perks of...receiving a wage like everyone else. Employing the unemployed and not paying them, simply for being unfortunate enough to be unemployed...is ridiculous.

[Cherie]

Send people to work for their jobseekers... Was there ever a more oxymoronic sentence uttered?

What of travel costs incurred and/or child care, should they perhaps walk however far it is, maybe carrying a 'drain on society' placard?

If you actually read what I had to say instead of jumping on everything, I did say it would be useful for young people who have never had employment or those changing jobs, as lack of experience is a huge barrier to getting work, maybe their travel costs could be met, maybe their childcare could be covered, the existing system doesn't really help anyone, job centres sending people for job interviews where they are turned down due to lack of experience, you seem to be in favour of keeping the current system when it clearly doesn't work..pardon the pun

[Niamh.]

Whatever happened to the Kizzy/Cherie sisteromance?

[Kizzy]

Whatever happened to the Kizzy/Cherie sisteromance?

We still have one, we just don't kiss each others arses, we have our own minds Niamh :idc:

[Cherie]

Whatever happened to the Kizzy/Cherie sisteromance?

No different to you and Livia going at it :joker:

[Cherie]

We still have one, we just don't kiss each others arses, we have our own minds Niamh :idc:

:love:

[Vicky.]

If you actually read what I had to say instead of jumping on everything, I did say it would be useful for young people who have never had employment or those changing jobs, as lack of experience is a huge barrier to getting work, maybe their travel costs could be met, maybe their childcare could be covered, the existing system doesn't really help anyone, job centres sending people for job interviews where they are turned down due to lack of experience, you seem to be in favour of keeping the current system when it clearly doesn't work..pardon the pun

I do think this could be a good idea for those who don't have experience. however, this would cost extra, paying for childcare and travel expenses...and as such it wouldn't happen. And...it should only be in areas where having experience would actually help. So again, not shelf stacking and such which seems to be the go to 'workfare' type 'jobs'. Noone in power actually wants to help the unemployed else there wouldn't be endless cuts and workfare and so on in the first place...its just about saving money and massaging the unemployment figures, along with maybe a touch of punishing poor people for being poor (before anyone starts, I mean labour aswell as the Tories, as they also had an unfair 'free work' programme, though as I recall they did pay people 15 whole pounds per week extra to do the workfare placements...)

[Beso]

Instead of paying their childcare, pay them for looking after their kids.

[Kizzy]

If you actually read what I had to say instead of jumping on everything, I did say it would be useful for young people who have never had employment or those changing jobs, as lack of experience is a huge barrier to getting work, maybe their travel costs could be met, maybe their childcare could be covered, the existing system doesn't really help anyone, job centres sending people for job interviews where they are turned down due to lack of experience, you seem to be in favour of keeping the current system when it clearly doesn't work..pardon the pun

I wasn't referring to your comment, so who's jumping now?

What you are advocating has little or nothing in fact to do in relation to this thread so your accusatory tone is misplaced.
If childcare costs and travel costs are to be met then wouldn't this be similar to the 'sure start' centres that have all but closed, where would the funding come from for such a scheme, if there is no money to pay people to do a job where is the money to pay someone to look after someones kids to not pay them to do a job?....
Not really sure what it is I'm being accused of here Cherie.

[Kizzy]

No different to you and Livia going at it :joker:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b5/ce/53/b5ce53308824d9023eafdbce0c94b5ae.gif

[Niamh.]

No different to you and Livia going at it :joker:
I have no idea what you're talking about, me and Livia agree about everything :fan:

[Kizzy]

Listen... I'll tolerate Cherie fence sitting, but you crossing to the dark side?

Not on my watch sweetheart! :nono:

[user104658]

Niamh and Livia and Kizzy and Cherie going at it :smug:

[Niamh.]

Take your mind out of the gutter TS :nono:

[user104658]

Also the workfare rules are STUPID given you are not allowed to do college courses and stuff (you know, things that could actually help longer term unemployed people to find work?) as apparently you would not have enough time to search for work if your course is (I believe it was..) 16 hours per week+

Yep, this one has always been ridiculous, sanctioning people's income for seeking education / training that would make them more employable, and off of JSA quicker. Madness. That, and the fact that it's set up so that you're not "allowed" to take on small roles, say 4 to 6 hours a week, doing anything as it ends up being financially impossible.

Universal Credit was/is in theory supposed to address the latter problem (you can work a couple of hours and still claim the rest of the credit) BUT the less said about the UC shambles the better really. I'm starting to suspect it'll never come into full effect, it's so broken. And has cost untold amounts already.

[user104658]

Oh and this is one of my fav quirks: if YOU go out seeking relevant voluntary work they will sanction you for not spending all of your time jobseeking. However, THEY can send you on "voluntary" placements of their choosing because it's good for people to have the experience. :think:

[Kizzy]

Don't get me started about UC...That was specifically designed to siphon public money, ow they have gotten away with this 'computer upgrade' scam within both welfare and the NHS I don't know...Corruption is not strong enough a word!