Metropol

The other issue I have noted is the fact it appears to be being exploited by very big rich companies as a source of cheap short term labour.

Essentially you are being forced to work for Tesco for considerably less money that you would be receiving than if you had actually been given a job by Tesco (who may very well have already turned a job application from yourself down in the months previously) and with no guarantee of a job at the end of it, oh and the govt are paying your wage. Therefore the only person seemingly benefiting from this would be, erm, Tesco.

This would appear to have narked people more than the other issues as I believe previously there was a similar scheme under labour where you could be forced to work for a charity or public sector body as evidence that you were not infact "work shy" which didn't seem to generate anything like the level of distaste.

Now I'll admit to neither having fully investigated the ins and outs of this, nor for that matter, so I particular give a toss, but it would certainly appear to be a much more complex issue than just "how dare they make our brave benefit scroungers do some work" as I've seen it framed by some.

It is a bloody horrible scheme which, like most things the JobCentre does, is designed not to actually get you in to a job but to get you off benefits.

I know it is non-compulsory but I'd be very surprised if that was the way the JobCentre got hooked people in to it. If it was about experience for the claimant I don't see why you're only given 1 week to change your mind about it before being locked in for up to 6 months, and I'm equally sure they don't even tell you about the 1 week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

A graduate being placed in "work experience placements" in Poundland despite having enough retail experience to know that it definitely isn't what they want to do and despite already doing unpaid work experience in a field relevant to her chosen career path. I very very much doubt this is an isolated incident.

It's a complete disgrace - and I don't see how even the most hardened of the selfish tax-payer alliance loonies can be happy with "their tax money" being awarded to others conditional on slave-labour to a profit-making company.

It isn't slave labour though Will, it's £29.25 an hour if you've spent a year on benefits. The girl you linked to is the same girl who was selling her sob story to the Daily Mail (see, the government scheme has resulted in her earning money! Win-win!) As adorable as it is that she wants to work in a museum, you can't always have everything you want, I imagine there aren't many jobs going in museums, so she'd do well to look elsewhere in the short term.

There are ALWAYS jobs in retail, if you look for them. When I've moved to different areas of London, I've just had to put a few calls in and I've been offered work. If this girl has retail experience, there must be other reasons people aren't snapping her up. Perhaps her sense of entitlement or unenthusiasm for anything other than museums (stacking shelves in Poundland was too lowly, she suggests).

And Pete, I wouldn't say the store always benefits. It's certainly not a golden fountain of excellent mannered, customer service champions, just waiting to be deployed. Who you end up with on your shop floor is very hit and miss.

I can appreciate that the placements could be seen to replace paid jobs, but all the retailers - and the government - are quite adamant that this is not the case. Taking a department store for example, you couldn't rely on a stream of 4 week placements to man your shop floor, you need experienced, trained staff who are there for longer to do the job properly and develop an expertise.

And I'd argue that if companies like Tesco weren't going to employ more staff anyway - and opt to 'struggle along understaffed' - then it makes no difference to give them a few work experience people for a few weeks; although I do think that the companies could perhaps give the trainees some money/match their benefits - it'd still be cheap for them, and it'd benefit the jobseeker too.

That £29/hour figure is totally perverse - it implies that the amount job seekers get is anything above and over the bare amount one needs to reasonably survive on. It's effectively zero; the absolute minimum.

I have loads of retail experience and I'm quite certain that if I wanted to work in that arena again I could quite easily. Have I any intention of doing that? Absolutely none whatsoever. It's a bloody horrible job and there's no way I would even entertain the thought of doing that much donkey work for so little money especially with the qualification I'm about to receive.

Okay, so my qualification is one which I'm certain wont leave me jobless for very long (if at all), and I accept that graduates who chose to study a vocational course with little-to-no demand for it in the job market (see all the nutters that do forensics as a result of enjoying CSI) are living in la-la land and need a reality check. But there's a long way between the job most graduates want to do and retail.

Retail is a workplace which has been destroyed by the fall of the unions and the rise of the indifferent casual worker and worse - the desperate. But that's sort of an aside. The point is that it also works as a very well oiled trap to catch desperate graduate jobseekers, ware them down into thinking it's all their good for and then "sealing the deal" with a 30p/hour rise and a "team leader" position. "Team leader" being supermarket-speak for a manager paid as if they're a Saturday boy.

However pie-in-the-sky the girl's ambitions might be, you simply don't get a job like a curator or whatever by just filling in an application form, and she's doing the right thing by trying while she's young.

I think it's fair to say the store always benefits. Any work is good work if it's free work - I've seen plenty of uniformed, supposedly trained Tesco staff who's customer service skills are massively sub-par so I don't really think it's particularly high on their agenda. I very much doubt they're contractually obliged to hold people who are brand damaging.

Of-bloody-course the retailers are adamant that it's not slave labour, it's a massive boon for them and they clearly don't want to give it up! I also doubt anybody is realistically claiming that it would be possible to staff an entire shop with these people. What it creates, however, is a further tier beneath those earning close to the minimum wage. An underclass, if you will. If they're allowed to continue, the only way to get a job in a bloody shop will be to perform 6 weeks of unpaid work for them - is that acceptable?

Also, what are the chances that retailers will ever employ a Christmas temp knowing they can just dial-a-slave from the JobCentre for the key trading weeks?

I think it's utterly disgusting. I think there should be schemes which return the long-term claimants into productive society, but there are likely to be tens of thousands of positions available to plug in the cash-strapped public sector. Libraries are closing everywhere for the lack of funds to pay for staff. Whilst there's no substitute for qualified librarians, keeping the doors open and stopping books and PCs getting stolen would be good enough for now.

Tesco, who enjoy profits measured in BILLIONS (£3.6BN last year) have no business taking on free labour.

So far they have recruited 1,400 staff members for the full training period of 6 weeks. At minimum wage, this is a saving to them of £1,646,400.

WE as the taxpayer have paid this to Tesco by way of State benefit funded employees.

By contrast, they have recruited just 300 members of staff. That's less than a quarter.

They are happy to continue this process year round. The figure I quoted was for just 6 weeks.

In times of relatively high employment, schemes like this may be useful to try and shift the work shy off their backsides, but with unemployment at almost 9% of the population, there are millions of skilled people who have, through no fault of their own, ended up being culled from their jobs. Anyone who claims JSA for more than three months will be offered a place on a scheme. Many of these people in Edinburgh, for example, have worked in financial services and banks - are highly skilled and experienced, and are being pushed into stacking shelves to "better skill" themselves for the jobs market, even though many of them could RUN large organisations.

Making them work for billion pound private firms for free is nothing short of disgraceful.

The irony is that the public sector are probably less likely to take on such staff because the unions would (quite rightly, I might add) have none of it. No workforce should have to accept the threat of completely unpaid staff.

It's this sort of hideous policy which will cause riots.

I think a way needs to be found (although I'm not sure quite how) of distinguishing between hardworking people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are self-motivated to gain re-employment and those with no intention of working. If that's done then I'd love to see the latter group forced off their arse to do something and so on first glance this seems like a brilliant scheme.

However, I completely agree that in an era of rising unemployment the last thing you need is to give the likes of Tesco access to free labour.

I believe that reviewing how the benefits system distributes its benefits would reap greater rewards. To me, it is madness that you are giving benefits scum cash money to spend how they choose. I've always believed that money is for people who have it or are prepared to work for it. Generally (for I accept there would need to be some exceptions) I believe that If you're on benefits, I believe that you should get things paid for for you and vouchers for food and clothing, with no access to physical cash.

Maybe instead of forcing people to work for free after 3 months they should instead only allow you to have your JSA and housing benefit paid by bank deposit for 3 months and after that this is withdrawn and you are provided for without actually receiving any money.

I think it would be interesting to see how many people suddenly manage to find work if that were to happen.

Moving back to those career people who have been made redundant though, I cannot fathom how it is that an awful lot of people seem incapable of furthering their career without burning bridges. Although I've changed jobs quite a few times in order to climb up ther ladder, I've always left my previous jobs amicably and I know that all of my previous employers would seriously consider an application from me if they had a vacancy available. If I were to be made redundant tomorrow, before joining the dole queue I would make some phone calls and I suspect there's a good chance that I'd be able to get at least *something* (even if it's not as good as the job I have now) before I became another statistic on benefits. Whilst I do feel sorry for how hard some people have fallen in recent years I do wonder if it's not at least partly their own fault that they can't find anyone else to employ them following their redundancy.

I can see where you're coming from, and obviously it's preferable for retailers to take on paid staff. But all of these companies have spent a lot of time slashing jobs to boost their profits. Whilst they'll obviously snap up an opportunity to have free staff, they could just as easily get by without them and, if they're entirely capable of continuing on a skeleton staff with no detriment to their business, what right do we have to dictate that they should be investing their profits in more staff, any more than we have a right to demand they lower their prices or open fewer stores?

Your argument overlooks free market economy. If companies can operate with skeleton staff they will. If by doing so they lose customer satisfaction - long queues, disgruntled punters, they will employ more staff. It isn't "preferable" to have paid staff, it's essential.

Also, I'm not convinced by your argument that "the taxpayer has given Tesco the money", it's not a watertight argument because these people would have been claiming the benefits regardless and not a penny of it is going to Tesco. Whilst they may be saving money by not employing extra staff, they're not gaining these people's wages, and as I said before they'd just as happily continue without them.

They're not gaining the job seekers allowance, which is about £65 a week or thereabouts. They are, in fact, gaining significantly more in salary savings.

If this system was fair, they would be compelled to take on a huge percentage of these free workers after the full six week period, or release them (if it is clear they are unsuitable) within the one week "cooling off" period which the workers are given.

Less than 25% are taken on permanently, and there is no limit on how many people Tesco and others can recruit under the current arrangement.

Unremarkably, this tory wheeze benefits private shareholders of large corporations, whilst massaging employment figures.

And Will, to earn £789.75 (3 months benefits) on minimum wage, you'd have to work 130 hours. If you're put on this scheme after 3 months, you're only expected to do 120 hours; so not only is it not unpaid as you suggest, it works out better than minimum wage!

And who wants to try and live off £790 for 3 months? Even with rent paid through Housing Benefit (which you can't take for granted any more) that's still bugger all money to survive on.

I don't think there's ever been a 3 month period since I started working as a Saturday boy at The Entertainer when I was 16 that I've had an income as low as that. I seriously doubt there are many adults who are satisfied with that level of earnings.

The idea that people trying to scratch together an existence on £3200pa (with a reduced rent bill) scrubbing floors at Poundland without even a guaranteed interview are somehow better off than those working behind the tills earning at least somewhat more is bizarre.

I don't know what your experience of Jobseekers are, but as a 22-year-old who's undergraduate course is a year longer than almost everybody else's, I know a fair few of them. Most of them have degrees which would have suited a graduate career in a middle-management and/or public sector position. Through absolutely no fault of their own, these job markets have sunk considerably and they now find themselves scrapping to get a foot in the door anywhere.

Speaking for myself here, I've worked damn hard over the last 4 years get a decent degree so I don't have to put up with the crap working conditions of retail. I cannot imagine anything more demeaning than, on top of not being able to find a job, being expected to show up for a semi-forced "work placement" at Poundland.

This idea that everybody should just go out and work for whatever they can do (even if that's earning nothing working for an organisation making several billions in profit) is poisonous. It's about time people rejected positions which clearly pay far below what a business could reasonably afford and started expecting a fair level of remuneration. And by fair I do not mean the minimum wage.

I don't understand why they are being offered to the private sector, who could jolly well PAY for the work, when the public sector is struggling. Tesco's decision not to hire is based on a decision to maximise profits. The country's decision not to is based on a genuine financial constraint.

That said, I think the retail stores are going to discover that they don't want these workers. Having people working for you with a stick (we'll take away your benefits) rather than a carrot (we'll pay you) is going to lead to miserable, angry and resentful staff:

I cannot imagine anything more demeaning than, on top of not being able to find a job, being expected to show up for a semi-forced "work placement" at Poundland.

I do think, though, that if you ask for the Job Centre's help, you should take what it gives you. People are under no obligation to ask for benefits if they think they can do better on their own.

cdd wrote:I don't understand why they are being offered to the private sector, who could jolly well PAY for the work, when the public sector is struggling. Tesco's decision not to hire is based on a decision to maximise profits. The country's decision not to is based on a genuine financial constraint.

You're wrong, cdd: Tesco have just offered to pay, sort of.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 9827641A00

WillPS wrote:And who wants to try and live off £790 for 3 months? Even with rent paid through Housing Benefit (which you can't take for granted any more) that's still bugger all money to survive on.

I never said it was a living wage, but doing 120 hours work for £790 is not bad value.

WillPS wrote:Most of them have degrees which would have suited a graduate career in a middle-management and/or public sector position... Speaking for myself here, I've worked damn hard over the last 4 years get a decent degree so I don't have to put up with the crap working conditions of retail. I cannot imagine anything more demeaning than, on top of not being able to find a job, being expected to show up for a semi-forced "work placement" at Poundland.

I've no doubt that you've worked hard for your degree and I wish you every success landing the job of your dreams, but you're no more entitled to that job than I am entitled to win the X Factor. Having a degree does not automatically stop you from 'starting at the bottom' and whilst you have no desire to work in retail (and not all the placements are in retail), if you're desperate for work you may not have much choice if you want to earn money.

I know a few people with media degrees who expected to be directing films when they graduated and were horrified to start as runners. This sense of entitlement is what's truly poisonous. You have a degree, so working in retail is beneath you? You mention your friends with suitable degrees for 'middle management'? Perhaps they're up against people who didn't go to university and started with a placement at 18 and spent the last three years working their way up the career ladder and have actual experience in the real world.

A degree does not entitle you to the career of your choice unfortunately. If everybody could do what they wanted, we'd have a nation full of D-list celebrities and no nurses, police officers, fire fighters.

Again, you single out 'scrubbing floors' as the lowliest of jobs. For some people that IS their job. I'm so sorry that cleaning floors is beneath you now that you have a degree. What you're forgetting is that for most people these placements last for TWO WEEKS. That's two weeks work, for three months free living. It isn't a lot to ask. Perhaps Cait from the Guardian article was given the 'lowly' job of scrubbing floors to give her a sense of humility, and to remind her that whilst she fannies around in a museum at the taxpayer's expense for a few weeks, there are people doing this 'lowly work' and earning a living, although she'd NEVER apply for a job as a cleaner because it's beneath her because she has a degree from the University of Birmingham.

I've illustrated pretty articulately in the the last post how an income of £3200pa is barely sufficient to exist on - I don't really feel the need to say anything other than I don't know how you could consider that with a period of arbitrary slave labour a 'good deal'.

You've used the word lowly, not me. I don't believe that retail and/or cleaning work is lowly at all - I believe it is massively undervalued and as I expressed in the closing paragraph of my last post I strongly believe something should happen about it. I singled out scrubbing the floors as it's not "experience" which I believe anybody at all needs, and an example of a blatant abuse of the system.

There's a difference between doing something upstanding for the community like being a Nurse, Police Officer or Fire Fighter and scrubbing the floor for a penny-pinching PLC. I believe what motivates people to do those jobs is not the pay but goodwill. I've nothing but respect for people who persue that sort of career. As bizarre as it might sound to you, not everybody wants to be a celebrity. Plenty of people grow up dreaming of being a Doctor or a Nurse or a Train Driver or an IT Professional (well maybe just me on that one). I've already explained that I am not sympathetic to people who have chosen a vocational degree in a field there is simply not enough work in.

I am, however, sympathetic to those looking for careers in arts-related areas as I understand they've been hit heavily by the cuts which were not at all foreseeable when they started their course. It seems right and proper to me that as a nation we support people like Cait in doing voluntary work for a museum with a mid-term view to getting a remunerative position (or 'fannying about in a museum' as you so eloquently put). On a personal level, I'd like to see more Jobseekers taking up voluntary positions for charities, not less.

cdd wrote:

I cannot imagine anything more demeaning than, on top of not being able to find a job, being expected to show up for a semi-forced "work placement" at Poundland.

I do think, though, that if you ask for the Job Centre's help, you should take what it gives you. People are under no obligation to ask for benefits if they think they can do better on their own.

I strongly disagree. Where's the incentive for the poor workplace to improve if everybody piles in to the first door they can?