UK - Slave work schemes

[mashman]

"A graduate who was forced to work at Poundland for free has won an appeal, in a blow for the Government's back-to-work schemes.

Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, had argued that being made to work in the discount shop for nothing while she looked for a permanent job was illegal.

Jamieson Wilson, 40, an unemployed lorry driver from Nottingham who was stripped of jobseeker's allowance for refusing an unpaid cleaning role, also won his legal challenge."

Ahhhhh the future's looking as bright as the people who are leading us there.

[jonbuoy]

The future is looking like a bigger budget deficit. Workshy slobs.

[Banditbandit]

The future is looking like a bigger budget deficit. Workshy slobs.

Fuck off - would you work for free ???

[bogan]

Fuck off - would you work for free ???

You do realise they way they 'forced' them to work, was by not paying them so much benefit right? So, they get more money for doing the work, which doesn't sound like working for free at all.

[jonbuoy]

Fuck off - would you work for free ???

Its not for free is it? Someones paying for benefits.

[Grizzo]

I works for my moneys

[Banditbandit]

You do realise they way they 'forced' them to work, was by not paying them so much benefit right? So, they get more money for doing the work, which doesn't sound like working for free at all.

THat's not what the stroy says.

Its not for free is it? Someones paying for benefits.

Yes - the continue to get the benefit while the do this work.

It's a tricky one. If they are working in a shop, as this woman was, then the Government benefit scheme is subsidizing private enterprise ... the shop makes more profit because it is getting productive work for free. If there is work there to be done, then it should be paid work. How many people would get off the benefits if the work was paid for by the employers and not on benefits? The unemploymetn rate remains high while the Government subisides private enterprise ...

Now if peopel were doing truly community work, whoch would not subsidize private enterprise, then I have no issue with uemployed peopel doing that. IT does reduce the aount of time they can spend lookign for a job if they are required to work 8 hours a day while on the dole ... but there are ways and means ...

But in the end, I object to taxpayer money subsidizing businesses ..

[bogan]

THat's not what the stroy says.

Really, what does this bit mean then?

She was told she would lose jobseeker's allowance if she refused and spent two weeks stacking shelves and cleaning floors.

[jonbuoy]

Which looks better on your CV - 6 months sat on your arse watching daytime TV or 6 months on a work scheme?

[oneofsix]

Which looks better on your CV - 6 months sat on your arse watching daytime TV or 6 months on a work scheme?

neither, plus the time spent on the forced labour scheme could have been spent job hunting or developing skills. Instead the poor slobs in low paid work are having their taxes go to subsidise some employer that is too cheap to employ the workers the need and to keep their wages down.

[Banditbandit]

Really, what does this bit mean then?

It does not mean the same as "they get more money for doing the work" ... it means they get less money if they don't do the work ...

(Fuck - I want a higher literacy level than you have when I employ people ...)

[jonbuoy]

neither, plus the time spent on the forced labour scheme could have been spent job hunting or developing skills. Instead the poor slobs in low paid work are having their taxes go to subsidise some employer that is too cheap to employ the workers the need and to keep their wages down.

They would have had 9 months to do that already... Do you know anything about the scheme other than the posts on here? 9 months out of work I would be climbing the walls.

[bogan]

It does not mean the same as "they get more money for doing the work" ... it means they get less money if they don't do the work ...

(Fuck - I want a higher literacy level than you have when I employ people ...)

Are you new to the whole maths thing? More money for doing work, is the same as less money for not doing work; hint, it all depends what you are comparing it to. You're thinking about it from the biased viewpoint that they already deserve the benefit, ie, they don't get more money than they deserve for working, but they get get less if they don't. Try and be a bit more objective before calling my literacy level into question.

[Banditbandit]

Are you new to the whole maths thing? More money for doing work, is the same as less money for not doing work; hint, it all depends what you are comparing it to. You're thinking about it from the biased viewpoint that they already deserve the benefit, ie, they don't get more money than they deserve for working, but they get get less if they don't. Try and be a bit more objective before calling my literacy level into question.

Yes - I know where you are coming from .. My position is that these people get a base benefit - if they work they get that money - if they don't work they get less money ... I can't see how you can argue that they get more money if they work .. they get the same money if they work ...

[jonbuoy]

There are generations of families in the UK scrounging off benefits. Too many hands in the pot and not enough hands putting in. Its unsustainable. The money cold be used for health and education (assuming your even remotely interested in being educated of course). If you want to take money from the pot you should work for it.

Do you cloth, feed and give your kids pocket money without ever asking them to help around the house?