[Vicky.]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...obless-1480979

A civil service source said: “There is no target to get people in work but there is a target of 100,000 to put people into work experience.

“Employers have been told, “Don’t advertise jobs as vacancies. Let Jobcentre Plus supply you people on work experience.’

Now I know there is a 'workfare' thread already, but I feel this is worthy of its own tbh.

Does anyone agree with this? Effectively telling employers NOT to give people real jobs (thus taking them off benefits long term) and instead told they will be provided 'free' work (keeping the staff on benefits)

I cant make sense of this at all. Surely having even 1,000 people back in proper paid work (and contributing into the system) would be better than 100,000 people on the continous 'work experience' cycle?! DWPs research shows that these work placements dont actually help people get a job too...so theres literally no point to them. Shouldnt we be encouraging businesses to take on real employees rather than discouraging them from paying wages?

[I have to add though, that it seems not every company is exploiting this. Superdrug apparently employ the staff properly after the work experience, and 10% of poundland workfare people get a job at the end of it... but the message that this sends out is still ridiculous if companies have really been told that]

tesco seem to be talking **** though

'“We offer them the option to be paid by Tesco for the four weeks, or to remain on their benefit scheme, with the guarantee that a permanent role will be available if the placement goes well on either option.”'

Yeah...because surely people are going to CHOSE not to be paid for their work

[Kizzy]

Omg! If that isn't the proof they are just plotting for a nation of drones working for their benefits unable to escape the cycle of poverty I don't know what is....
stunned.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...obless-1480979



Now I know there is a 'workfare' thread already, but I feel this is worthy of its own tbh.

Does anyone agree with this? Effectively telling employers NOT to give people real jobs (thus taking them off benefits long term) and instead told they will be provided 'free' work (keeping the staff on benefits)

I cant make sense of this at all. Surely having even 1,000 people back in proper paid work (and contributing into the system) would be better than 100,000 people on the continous 'work experience' cycle?! DWPs research shows that these work placements dont actually help people get a job too...so theres literally no point to them. Shouldnt we be encouraging businesses to take on real employees rather than discouraging them from paying wages?

[I have to add though, that it seems not every company is exploiting this. Superdrug apparently employ the staff properly after the work experience, and 10% of poundland workfare people get a job at the end of it... but the message that this sends out is still ridiculous if companies have really been told that]

It's basic economics. More money into the system through more people working, equals greater demand for products and items, which creates expansion in business and creates further demand for jobs.

Unemployment statistics don't create jobs. Demand does.

[Mrluvaluva]

A continuous cycle of people working a few weeks at a time, is surely not in the best interests of the individual, or the business concerned? The company may see it as getting free labour, but what about the man hours spent on training, only to keep having to repeat it over and over again? Surely proper staff training, leading to a permanent position, would be more beneficial in the long run? So many seem to look at the short term, rather than the long term investment in people. And is a couple of weeks experience stacking shelves really going to look good on anyone's CV?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

A continuous cycle of people working a few weeks at a time, is surely not in the best interests of the individual, or the business concerned? The company may see it as getting free labour, but what about the man hours spent on training, only to keep having to repeat it over and over again? Surely proper staff training, leading to a permanent position, would be more beneficial in the long run? So many seem to look at the short term, rather than the long term investment in people. And is a couple of weeks experience stacking shelves really going to look good on anyone's CV?

I would think that working on a checkout requires maybe 1 hour of 'training' at the most really. When I worked in burger king years ago I got shown the till then expected to just do the job from there...took half an hour. Well worth it for the businesses, 6 weeks worth of work for free...only inconvenience being having to do the hour or so training once every 6 weeks. Bargain really.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would think that working on a checkout requires maybe 1 hour of 'training' at the most really. When I worked in burger king years ago I got shown the till then expected to just do the job from there...took half an hour. Well worth it for the businesses, 6 weeks worth of work for free...only inconvenience being having to do the hour or so training once every 6 weeks. Bargain really.

Yes, but not every placement is the same and requires just being on a checkout. I am well aware that others do actually require more extensive training. An inexperienced employee will not have the same productivity as an experienced one either. My point is that investment in people and training is surely a good thing in the long run, for both the employer and the employee. Too many fail to look at the bigger picture though, and look at the short term gain.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

Yes, but not every placement is the same and requires just being on a checkout. I am well aware that others do actually require more extensive training. An inexperienced employee will not have the same productivity as an experienced one either. My point is that investment in people and training is surely a good thing in the long run, for both the employer and the employee. Too many fail to look at the bigger picture though, and look at the short term gain.

Sorry, I wasnt aware of places other than the likes of tescos/poundland/superdrug/charity shops/etc taking on workfare which is why I assumed it was all just checkout/unskilled work

I do agree with what you are saying though, especially

'An inexperienced employee will not have the same productivity as an experienced one either.'

this. I will also add that someone who is forced to work for you but does not get the benefits of working (mainly...wages) is unlikely to be as productive as someone taking home a regular wage.

[the truth]

a good economy also needs good values to underpin it...good morals and a good work ethic, it is this area that we are failing