To think that all this 'get the people on benefit to work' is less about cost saving for the economy and more about getting business owners slave labour?

(117 Posts)
Heroine Wed 05-Dec-12 13:01:40

I just can't help thinking, when I hear another daft greedy business owner claiming that 'work gives a social benefit' whilst advocating 16 year olds working for £2 an hour so that they can earn £50K a year plus from their small shop that all this low wage, internship and apprenticeship crap is just a way to further line the pockets of the relatively wealthy.

Also I had a big lecture from someone about how their business was doing badly, then I saw their massive house and two large guzzling cars whilst they have taken on three apprentices at £2 an hour - the same as one minimum wager! Its shocking.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 08:13:15

Presumably these apprenticeships are for those people who can't get any other job, mainly through lack of qualifications or experience?

If they can compete in the open job market, they aren't being forced into an apprenticeship.

Working in a shop is about a lot more than using a till, for which I am sure the training is more than 10 minutes. It's about time-keeping, appearance, communications skills, attention to detail, efficiency, etc. These transferrable skills require training, development and feedback from the employer.

I can see the value on giving employers an incentive to take on youngsters who have nothing on paper to offer.

My teenagers have to pay to get their qualifications.

AnnaRack Sat 08-Dec-12 08:30:36

If the job the "trainee" is doing was previously being done by an employee on afull wage then of course it's exploitation.

Op your last post is a bit confusing. Do you mean they are self employed and that they are putting false expenses through so their profit is low, or do you mean they are directors of a company and taking a low salary? In either case, cars etc don't go through as a lump sum, a proportion is as a capital allowance, reduced by personal use.
I also thought that workfare was a 2 pound contribution to the benefit, not that the person only receives 37 hours at 2 pounds? Altho actually, wouldn't that be the equivalent of jsa? (71 pounds a week?)

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 08:52:24

The minimum wage for a 16/17 year old apprentice is £2.65 per hour, and they work a minimum of 30 hours - so earn £80 per week.

Transferable skills which would be learnt in any job do not make something an apprenticeship.

A structured programme of practical on the job learning, supported by theory, which leads to a qualification at the end, is what an apprenticeship should be.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 09:48:56

Most people leave school with the minimum of transferrable skills. There are, however, a sizeable number who do not and need to learn them on the job. If an employer has to do what should have been done at home or school, why should they pay double the wage?

Why shouldnt they pay National Minimum Wage? Then people who have got skills can earn a living wage as a reward for having those skills, and the unskilled can still support themselves.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:15:28

They will want someone who is "work-ready" if they are to pay mnw.

If they have to provide remedial education, why should they pay more? They can get plenty of people to fill these jobs with only a minimal induction.

Why was it ok before then?

Because we had a government which upheld the principle of nmw.

This government is undermining it,because it feeds into their theory that the poor are scum and business owners are superior.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:21:42

Was it OK?

What was OK?

That companies had to pay nmw to everyone, unless it was a recognised apprenticeship which provided a trade.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:33:01

What was youth (16 - 18) unemployment like, and how was it tackled?

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:39:40

Let's get some facts about NMC:

£6.08 per hour for adult workers (21+)
£4.98 per hour for 18-to-20-year-old
£3.68 per hour for under-18s who have finished compulsory education
£2.65 per hour for apprentices under 19 years old or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

So, if your typical 16 or 17 year old can get a job on the open market, they are only £1.03 better off than someone of the same age who brings nothing to the table. A pound an hour doesn't seem bad for remedial education leading to recognised qualifications.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 15:48:13

It makes me chuckle no end when hard facts = thread killer.

All those people who bleat "exploitation" don't know where to look.

These placements arent just being aimed at young people though.

A neighbour of mine has to do an unpaid placement in a charity shop. Hes in his thirties.

Yet, I cant apply for jobs I could do easily because I am 25 and most of the jobs are in the youth employment scheme.

The whole jobmarket is a shambles right now.

Heroine Sat 08-Dec-12 16:06:36

Some points:

1. Are you seriously benchmarking against the minimum wage to judge the contribution of workers to the business?

2. If minimum wage is the wage that should be paid to the most unskilled jobs with the highest number of available workers, why is the minimum wage still paid to many jobs that require the employee to have more about them than no skills at all.

3. Business owners can easily manoeuvre what is salary into profit in order to pay less tax

4. Some business owners say 'how can I make my employees feel part of the team, rewarded and motivated' other say 'If I can get this sucker legally to work for nearly nothing, and get the government to pay me to do so, I am cleverer than that sucker because I can rip him off, so I deserve the money'.

5. I don't think large employers making billions profit a year that shareholders are taking away are really 'struggling business owners'

6. Its clear however you put it that these schemes are about subsidising the business, not the worker.

7. That the net result is that the worker is disadvantaged, less likely to learn the skills he/she needs to progress, can't have spare money so is limited by a cycle of dependency to work rather than by a cycle of motivation and achievement.

8. That long term this is foolish because if too many individuals or households are paid only subsistence wages, then the economy becomes too reliant on food and household goods as there is little expenditure on anything else

9. So who benefits the most from low waged apprenticeships?

10. That's right, the supermarkets, whose shareholders from the top five are taking about £15billion out of the economy at the top end every year.

11. Which represents 1.5 million minimum wage (over 18s) workers - i.e. half the jobless.

Darkesteyes Sat 08-Dec-12 17:07:00

AmerryscotSat 08-Dec-12 08:13:15

Presumably these apprenticeships are for those people who can't get any other job, mainly through lack of qualifications or experience?

If they can compete in the open job market, they aren't being forced into an apprenticeship.

Working in a shop is about a lot more than using a till, for which I am sure the training is more than 10 minutes. It's about time-keeping, appearance, communications skills, attention to detail, efficiency, etc. These transferrable skills require training, development and feedback from the employer.

Amerryscot 9 years ago i got a job at Boxclever. (a now defunct tv rental business) i worked in one of their shops. I had to learn a till yes.... but i also had to learn their computer programme so i could do rental contracts (the shop had a till and a computer ) and you often had to multi task with both at the same time. Do you know how long it took me to learn and be trained up to do it........THREE WEEKS!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now