Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that applications to work in areas of the sex industry must be increasing.

106 replies

carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 22:59

After reading recent threads on here its got me wondering. Wages are low. Tax credits do make cock ups on claims and benefits can take ages to come through.
Some people dont always qualify to recieve anything and are left with huge gaps of weeks before any money comes in. A couple of years ago there was an article in a magazine called The rise of the dole dancer about this sort of subject.
But when someone has the choice of doing something like this or starving i can certainly see why someone would do it.
Hell i have done it. Ive worked in a sex chatline office.
By sex industry i mean anything from phone lines to escorting.
I suspect applications to work in this industry will rise even more once the changes to benefits and tax credits come into effect.
I worked in the chatline office ten years ago. I started that job after being forced to do workfare by the Job Centre. I did "work for your benefit" in a charity shop and then at my local council offices. It didnt lead to a job. Then they wanted me to work full time at Campbells soup factory for my JSA. Luckily i saw the chatline job advertised in the local paper,applied, interviewed and got it. I believe more people will enter this industry because of the new workfare as well.

OP posts:
squeakytoy · 14/11/2011 23:01

Then they wanted me to work full time at Campbells soup factory for my JSA

How the hell can companies be allowed to get away with this. That is just completely taking the piss. Hopefully that is some loophole that has now been stopped.

DioneTheDiabolist · 14/11/2011 23:02

I remember being unemployed during the recession in the early 90s.

Did I consider sex work?

Oh yes.

At the moment I don't have to, but if things got bad would I?
Oh yes (doubt if anyone would employ me now though)

Food and rent are necessary.

sprogger · 14/11/2011 23:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 23:06

Unfortunately squeakytoy it hasnt. Unemployed people are currently doing work placements at well known companies. Tesco Poundland Matalan and Primark are all using workfare workers.

OP posts:
lovelydogs · 14/11/2011 23:11

What's workfare?

WibblyBibble · 14/11/2011 23:14

Thing is, not everyone can work in the sex industry either. If you're unattractive or have social interaction problems, you aren't going to be able to. Fine for those who are, if they want to do it, but not everyone can just do it like you did.

CardyMow · 14/11/2011 23:15

Being forced to work for your benefits money. Usually used by big companies to avoid having to take on staff. Basically slave labour - work in Tesco's for 40 hours a week for your £65 a week JSA, or we will STOP giving you JSA.

How big companies like Tesco's manage to make so much profit in a recession - get the Government onside, then exploit the poor.

Original poster
carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 23:18

Workfare is when you are told to work full time in a job with no wage but just recieving your JSA. Refusal to comply means they stop your benefits. When i was on New Deal (which is what i was talking about upthread) it was for 13 weeks. The new Work Programme want claimants to do it for 4 weeks initially and then if they dont find a job after that then they want them to come back and do it again for 26 WEEKS.

OP posts:
eminencegrise · 14/11/2011 23:19

Workfare is what New Deal used to be, lovelydogs. Despite what the Tories would have you believe, people on JSA have been working for their benefits for a while now. They are compelled to do full-time work placements periodically, for 3-6 months, quite often for large corporations like Tesco. They are not paid the minimum wage, they are paid their normal benefit (under New Deal you'd also get some travel expense).

SolidGoldVampireBat · 14/11/2011 23:19

ANother growth area might be working for barely-legal loan companies, you know, the sort with 2000% interest rates.

CardyMow · 14/11/2011 23:20

New Deal / Workfare = Slave labour for big business.

eminencegrise · 14/11/2011 23:21

Or dealing drugs, petty theft/shoplifting to order.

slavetofilofax · 14/11/2011 23:23

Erm, what exactly is so bad about making people who are able to work, work? Confused

They aren't forced to do it, they get benefit in return.

Original poster
carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 23:23

Sorry Huntycat x posted there. Ive been reading your comments on that other thread and i agree with every word.
I realise not everyone can work in that industry (i doubt if i could now to be honest but the point i was trying to make is that if some one is faced with do it or starve or do it or workfare i would understand if they did it. The way things are going people are going to become more and more desperate.

OP posts:
eminencegrise · 14/11/2011 23:25

'Erm, what exactly is so bad about making people who are able to work, work?

They aren't forced to do it, they get benefit in return.'

What is so bad is that it allows large enough employers to pay below min wage rather than hire permanent employees, slave, thereby driving up unemployment and those reliant on state benefit. Smaller employers don't have this advantage, how it that fair, that some employers can get away with no paying min wage?

Original poster
carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 23:26

slave to filofax what would you do if your employer made you redundant and then a couple of weeks later replaced you with someone on workfare.

OP posts:
squeakytoy · 14/11/2011 23:28

That workfare thing is ludicrous. Why cant those companies just take on the staff and pay them the normal wages. That should be bloody illegal! I could understand it if it was a trial leading to a proper job offer, but without that it is just the company cashing in on cheap labour, wrong wrong wrong.

eminencegrise · 14/11/2011 23:28

or your employer made you redundant, then you had to go back and work for them for £65/week? you would be okay with that? because that is what is happening.

slavetofilofax · 14/11/2011 23:31

What makes you so sure that the company would take anyone on if there wasn't someone on benefit?

I used to work for a small charity, we had a girl there that was on new deal. She was lovely, but created far more work for the paid staff, because she wasn't trained so there wasn't that much we could actually get her to do. The charity was doing her the favour, not the other way round.

eminencegrise · 14/11/2011 23:33

'What makes you so sure that the company would take anyone on if there wasn't someone on benefit?'

Because I can assure you Tesco doesn't do things out of a sense of charity. They exist for profit and where it can't be had, nor are they.

AnyFucker · 14/11/2011 23:34

I believe Boots also do this

4 week "placements" supposedly to get it on your "CV" but really it is just cheap labour

many of these people don't have a "CV" because they have never been able to get employment

awful

squeakytoy · 14/11/2011 23:35

I think placing people into charitable organisations is okay, but a company like Tesco who have such huge profits, should not be able to get away with it.

I used to work for a small charity, we had a girl there that was on new deal. She was lovely, but created far more work for the paid staff, because she wasn't trained so there wasn't that much we could actually get her to do

Wasnt the idea to train her??? Confused

Original poster
carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 23:35

www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4111

OP posts:
Original poster
carernotasaint · 14/11/2011 23:36

Thats what i was going to say squeakytoy. you beat me to it.

OP posts:
youngermother1 · 14/11/2011 23:55

would just like to say that link is not impartial. They quote on the website:

Corporate Watch is a small independent not-for-profit research and publishing group which undertakes research on the social and environmental impact of large corporations, particularly multinationals. We aim to expose the mechanisms by which corporations function and the detrimental effects they have on society and the environment as an inevitable result of their current legal structure.

They therefore believe all companies are wrong. I agree there may be cases of abuse of the system, but most companies and most placements are genuine attempts to help. Maybe people don't get offers of work because they are not good at the job or have a bad attitude?