... to think the gov can eff off if they think I'm going to do voluntary work?

[woollyideas]

I'm really fed up with reading about this hypothetical army of volunteers who will run our libraries, patrol school crossings etc., etc. as part of the old Big Society thingmy. AIBU to think that if I was to be made redundant due to government cuts, I would prefer to lie in bed a bit later than usual, write, paint, read, bake cakes, stick two fingers up to the Condems, etc., after 30-odd years of working? Or do you think I should just pop along and be an unpaid slave happily work for nothing in a local school or something worthy?

What would you do?

What Shiney Dave is trying to set up is a Socialist Utopia. Which is fucking hilarious if you think about it. It didn't work in the Soviet Union and I can't really see it working here.

You mention the Soviet Union, duchesse. There's quite an interesting political story there, which has meaning now and here.

In the latter Soviet period, there was a "Little Deal" (reflection/refraction of the "Big Deal" in the US), which was effectively to allow people to withdraw from public life/the obligation to be endlessly politically mobilised and enjoy a few more consumer comforts, in return for not protesting (not being politically mobilised in the wrong way, you see).

I suppose a similar trade-off occurred here. Sorry I can't find the poster who explicitly mentioned this trade off on a personal level (can't volunteer so contributes through direct debit instead), but this rings true.

However, whipping up political mobilisation of a population is not a risk free exercise. That mobilisation can go different ways, and not necessarily into the channels those "whipping (up) boys" would prefer. This was a strong reason why the Soviet leadership chose to step back from the "politicised" atmosphere of the early days of the USSR. (not the only reason, mind; I just don't want to get into the complications that the Purges would bring into my argument!)

I've just caught up with this thread - and am just aghast at what's been said about Sainsburys and WH Smith etc using 'voluntary' labour. I really am shocked. Really and truly shocked. And I thought I was fairly cynical to start with.

And I'm not shopping at either of those shops anymore. Or any other shop that thinks that getting free labour in, in return for a derisory 'work experience' is a substitute for paying their workers a legal wage. I mean it's not as if they pay their staff well in the first place, is it?

I thought the Big Society was bad enough but this?
How is this not on the front pages?

Taste the difference? I bet you bloody can.

I spoke to my mother about the big society at lunch time so I shall give her credit

Before the Bevan report a lot of services and benefits were administered through the church, which of course had its own agenda. Apparently famillies would apply for assistance such as clothing for their children, if granted the child had to wear clothes labelled as charity received.

In view of the fact that conservatives like to look back in history and believe that "in the good old days" people took responsibility da di da di dah.... is this the sort of vision they have for the big society.

I think we need a list of shops which are actually using free labour.

I'm running out of places to shop...

Actually I think there has been an employment tribunal case about work experience and volunteers which has ruled that it is illegal to use volunteers to do work that needs to be done and that they should be paid the minimum wage unless on formal work experience programmes. Will check this later and try to come back with a link but remember looking it up a few weeks back when asked the question professionally.

swallowedAfly - but if its not a job and a volunteer post - then no wage is changing hands and therefore there would not be any law broken.

We have over 40 volunteers where I work and no one of them are paid any money at all. They are all trained, they have training sessions. They are part of the "office" and they mix with the paid staff.

Nothing illegal as the people that are volunteers are they because they have asked to be their. If one of them leaves there is a waiting list with about another 20 people on who would also like to volunteer, so no problem replacing them and no interviews either.

IVY - I think the key is 'they have asked to be there...' ie. they are volunteers in the true, old-fashioned sense, not 'volunteers' - in big fat inverted commas - as proposed by Shiny Dave.

I would really like to know more about the Sainsburys scheme before getting worked up about it. I don't object to the principle of compulsory work experience for people who've been on benefits for a long time; and offering that experience at a place that frankly is one of the most likely places to offer them real work afterwards seems more pragmatic in some ways than their doing it for, say, a charity, even though I understand the queasiness about giving free labour to a commercial company.
I would need to know, firstly, whether they got any choice about doing it anywhere else, and secondly, how long it was for: a month would be vastly different from, say, six months - if it was the latter I would be very suspicious about the motives of the company.

and by the way, compulsory 'volunteering' as a condition of benefits may be problematic in all sorts of ways but it is NOT slavery, as someone said below; slavery would be if you had no option of leaving even if you found a proper job or some other means of support.

wooly - they want to be there and consequently they do a wonderful job - well most of them. One ole boy is now 92 and can make a few mistakes now and then!

We wouldn't want people forced upon us that didn't want to actually be there doing very boring tasks - as they wouldn't do the work correctly and it would cause more work for the staff that are struggling with their own work loads due to staff not being replaced.

So forced volunteers.

Perhaps forced work experiance so that people can have some work experiance and get work through that

Onceamai, that's really interesting about the legislation.

But Seth (if I may truncate you like that...), if a profit-making company is using 'volunteer' labour to do jobs that it would otherwise have to pay someone to do (shelf-stacking, manning tills, whatever), those people - whether on 'work experience' or not should be paid the minimum wage.

I work in an industry (media) where it's now become standard practice to have a continual, rolling influx of people on 'work experience' - they are very rarely given jobs afterwards, not when there's a queue of people to do the job for nothing. And Shiny Dave's employment 'reforms' are only going make matters worse, imo.

I'd also welcome a list of companies misusing 'volunteer' labour in the way we've seen outlined on this thread. No, it's not slavery but it's certainly exploitation. And I don't want to give my money or support companies that operate like that.

I was going to start volunteering in September but the organisation I was hoping to volunteer for is under threat due to cuts and they can't afford to train any new volunteers at the moment.

that's all very well Madamimadam but then the companies simply won't offer the placements because it is a better bet to give the work to a normal applicant with a track record of employment than someone who hasn't worked and may or may not have the appropriate skills.
We all know that work experience people vary from the brilliant (as good as any paid staff and better than some) to the hopeless who take a lot of supervising and don't really achieve anything.

I've managed genuine work experience for students on a two week placement. It's a cliche, but we put at least as much in as we got out - probably a lot more, actually.

The students shadowed different people, did little projects, used various computer packages (hugely inefficient for us, given the ratio of training:productive time), and we tried to arrange things around their particular interests.

We also tried not to have them when we really busy, because we couldn't give them enough of our time.

That speaks volumes about the difference between real work experience and using forced labour as part of your core business. If Sainsbury's were really interested in helping people, it would have them shadowing store managers, not just stacking shelves (if this is indeed happening, and I've seen whispers about it too).

Shocked by the Sainsbury's info..

I posted this further up the thread - any comments?

'There was a time when I was working in an office-based job when I could get on the tube and be home to my shared flat by 6.30, work done for the day. I was fit, young and had no commitments. I spent evenings relaxing, reading, eating my meal, watching TV. Why shouldn't I have spent one evening a week doing something for other people?'

Where do the young, able bodied, child free, full time workers fit into this? Plenty of such people clearly do have enough time to volunteer - but I haven't seen any mention of mobilising them.

Sethstarkaddersmackerel, I think what you're saying is very true of genuine work experience, where valuable skills - and contacts are made. ThisisaNicaCage's placements, for instance.

The 'Sainsbury's' scenario is very different, in my eyes. I don't know know that employers like that are after a particular skills set - just cheap manual labour.

In a couple of the places I've worked, people with a track record of employment are generally expensive - and therefore undesirable. They'd much rather run the risk of mistakes with less experienced (but hopefully competent) people than shell out for the alternative. Especially when there's a fresh supply of people willing to do it for nothing.

Or - even better - move experienced people on to 'training' contacts, so you can pay them less but give them more hours.

There are examples where voluntary work can be beneficial to someone's career.

A tree surgeon who does work for my parents, first worked for a bank after school. He didnt like his job, and went on to do some courses in tree surgery, and afterwards did a three month voluntary placement with National Trust to get some experience. After this placement he was able to get a job, and now has his own business.

I dont think a three month placement with National Trust compares to working for Sainsbury's or WH Smiths, and it was done off his own back.

I work in an industry (media) where it's now become standard practice to have a continual, rolling influx of people on 'work experience' - they are very rarely given jobs afterwards, not when there's a queue of people to do the job for nothing. And Shiny Dave's employment 'reforms' are only going make matters worse, imo.

You are right madame, your example illustrates perfectly how "daves volunteering" will undermine economic growth and investment.

If companies,charities and local authourities realise that they can get the work done without the need to pay wages, where is the insentive to create real jobs.

MadamImAdam - but by skills here we're talking about skills like showing up for work in the morning or following instructions without getting chippy about it.
A lot of people who've been long term unemployed don't actually have those skills, especially if they have never worked. Others are actually perfectly capable but are lacking in confidence to put themselves forward for jobs. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that this is exactly the same as a professional internship programme but I also think it would be daft to suggest that there are not a large number of long-term unemployed people who would benefit from a period of work experience with a normal employer.

The Sainsburys programme might be exploitative, but I think on this thread people are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing anything about it, on the basis of a very small amount of hearsay. I'm quite prepared to share your outrage when I see more detail, but for now I think it is premature.

Turning up on time or following instructions can be gained working at a charity, or for actual pay on compulsory short-term contracts. And a fortnight would be plenty.

But agree, would need to know more about Sainsbury's thing to assess properly.