Advanced search

AIBU to think that doing workfare for the same co. that made him redundant should not be happening.

(61 Posts)
Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 22:35:53

Saw this on twitter earlier. The company made him redundant but later wanted him back on workfare. Appalling.

championnibbler Mon 03-Nov-14 22:41:21

That's awful.
Hopefully people will make the most of 07/05/15 to put an end to this nonsense.

TheLostPelvicFloorOfPoosh Mon 03-Nov-14 22:44:00

That's terrifying shock

How the hell can the govt say that's not forced labour?

Like championnibbler says - the next election cannot come quickly enough

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 22:44:28

Yy Champion the fact they have made him redundant is proof that there is not even a job at the end of it.

BackOnlyBriefly Mon 03-Nov-14 22:46:53

We said that would happen. I'm surprised it started so soon though.

If that isn't stopped it could be a reason to make someone redundant in the first place.

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 22:51:51

YY Back Its bloody frightening.

Norfolkandchance1234 Mon 03-Nov-14 22:52:23

This is appalling. The poor man, what an utterly humiliating experience for him. I mean who in their right mind thinks this is in any way ok.

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 22:54:15

I remember discussing the possibility this would happen on a massive thread about workfare on this very board 3 years ago.

8dayweek Mon 03-Nov-14 23:05:27

They didn't make him redundant though? His temporary job, via Future Jobs Fund, came to an end.

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 23:07:17

Maybe so 8day but the fact that they are willing to have him back for no pay shows that there is work there so why did they not simply extend his time there?

8dayweek Mon 03-Nov-14 23:13:42

His job with them was in 2010-2011, under Future Jobs Fund it would have been a 6 month contract, during which time the Government paid his wages.

PausingFlatly Mon 03-Nov-14 23:13:54

So people working for the state - NHS, dustbin collectors, prisons - are increasingly employed by private, profit-seeking companies.

And people working for private, profit-seeking companies are employed by the state.

Yes, yes, all makes sense to me.

WorraLiberty Mon 03-Nov-14 23:17:13

That's just horrible.

It's like taking the poor bloke's face and rubbing it in a pile of shit.

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 23:19:25

YY Worra Its bloody disgusting.

8dayweek Mon 03-Nov-14 23:20:42

Half my message disappeared?

I don't know, but it's been 3-4 years since he's worked there so I don't know whether it's as black & white as there is work there.

PausingFlatly Mon 03-Nov-14 23:23:40

If there isn't work there, what were they planning for him to do on the workfare placement they planned?

Even the dodgy Tescos-type claim that people are "learning" to stack shelves for 13 weeks won't stand up when they were planning a 6-month stint for someone who's already worked for them.

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 23:23:49

There is work there so he should be paid. When did actually getting paid a wage become such a radical idea.

WorraLiberty Mon 03-Nov-14 23:28:25

The cruellest thing is, he'll probably still be working with ex colleagues who are earning a decent wage.

Whether you agree with workfare or not (and I don't, but I understand others do), surely you have to agree this is rubbing salt in the wounds?

Darkesteyes Mon 03-Nov-14 23:34:02

I should think that ex colleagues could also be quite worried that it could happen to them.

8dayweek Mon 03-Nov-14 23:34:39

LAMH Recycle "which provides workplace opportunities within a supportive environment for individuals who are long-term unemployed generally through long-standing health issues, family/personal circumstances and/or no previous or recent work history"...

Straight off the employers website. Reading between the lines I would imagine this is a similar to Remploy? The "longstanding health issues" part makes me think it would be interlinked with Work Choice, which is for people with disabilities and health conditions, and therefore works in a similar way to Future Jobs Fund with regard to funding wages.

WorraLiberty Mon 03-Nov-14 23:35:27


WorraLiberty Mon 03-Nov-14 23:36:04

Sorry, my last post was to the OP.

8dayweek Mon 03-Nov-14 23:40:09

Sorry, it's late and I'm not making sense hmm but I'm trying to say I don't think many people at that company are being paid a wage by the employer. It looks like volunteer / charity / social based project reliant in the main on subsidised / "free" staff.

PausingFlatly Tue 04-Nov-14 00:37:30

With the difference being that employees at Remploy were... employees. Paid a wage and having employment rights.

Rather than workers without a wage and without rights, assigned to mandatory work by the state.

The guy in the article doesn't appear to be being "supported" by LAMH, does he?

PausingFlatly Tue 04-Nov-14 00:42:33

Is there any evidence that Mr McArthur has either mental health issues or needs - at the age of 59 - to learn employability skills?

Or that he needs anything other than a real job with real pay in response to the 50 CVs a week he is sending out?

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