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

[carernotasaint]

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.

If the position is available for Workfare wouldn't it be open for normal min wage job? Am a bit confused but thanks for explaining. When will this happen?

What all 3000 of them. All 3000 of them have a bad attitude? thats 3000 work placements that could/should be paying a wage then when one workfare worker finishes their stint and leaves the next one arrives. Why on earth would they take someone on and pay them when each one keeps getting replaced by another freebie worker.
And the Daily Mail isnt impartial either. They hate all benefit claimants including the genuine ones,yet ive seen a few posters take what they say as gospel.

NO. Most people I know that ended up on New Deal - me included, have worked damn hard in other jobs before and since - but didn't get kept on by these companies. We were replaced with another lot of New Deal people. They do it in rotation, thus keeping that job filled for Mr. Tesco, without Mr. Tesco having to pay NMW to the people working for him IYSWIM.

It is slave labour, pure and simple. If people are being made to work for their benefits - shouldn't they then be paid NMW by the person using them as an employee slave. If you are working a 40 hr week for £65, that works out to £1.63 an hour. . Slave Labour, or a Good Thing To Stop Scroungers? For the benefit of getting the JSA claimant back into the workforce, or for the benefit of the companies that take on these people.

Also, you have no rights on any sort of workfare - no contracted employee rights to breaks, no right to refuse overtime (or the company will contact the DWP and tell them you have not turned up, and you will then get your benefits stopped), and when they discard you without offering you a job, they get a 'fresh' person from workfare to replace you with.

I worked in a call centre, and I knew 4 other people that were taken on there after me, one at a time, through New Deal for Lone Parents. Each doing 4 weeks there, being refused food breaks, being refused toilet breaks, being given overtime at a moments notice which one couldn't do due to her child's nursery closing at 6pm - she had sanctions placed on her IS. We all knew each other. I'm quite sure the company is rubbing their hands in glee at a new batch of workfare slaves coming through their doors.

In fact - I was stupid enough to CHOOSE to be on New Deal for Lone Parents - I didn't have to be at the time, but was hopeful that the 4 week job would turn into a permanent position. Hahahaha.

I found myself a PROPER job 4 months after I left that placement. With no help from the Jobcentre. I was going around doing CV drops to every shop within reach of public transport once a week. That was what got me back into work - NOT being treated as a replaceable slave on workfare / New Deal.

never said the Daily Mail was right - often these may not be jobs that the company would employ someone for, so in effect have higher staffing levels, but not replacing paying jobs. However they are on the CV and provide a reference for a job application. Number of people that don't turn up on time or at all on jobs is very high, so evidence that you do is very useful, especially for the long term unemployed.

So you have already done this huntycat? It sounds so ridiculous it's almost like a joke. I can't quite believe it.

I read an article once about a dancer who made quite a lot of money for a well known club in London. A little excited I looked them up, auditions take place every day at 9 o clock. Great, I thought, just turn up, no one need know, and have a crack (!!) at it. (nice bit of xmas money)

Then as I got out of the bath one day I caught a glimpse in the mirror of my ever expanding, cellulite ridden body and wondered what on earth was I thinking??! Sometimes I think I still look like I did ten years ago! What a fool!

In the link i put up the woman on the placement at tesco metro says they wouldnt supply her with the protective clothing because it had tesco embazoned on it and she was not a tesco employee. If this is true its a breach of H+S laws. whats their excuse for breaking the law? This could seriously cause some bad publicity for these companies involved.

I have worked for a high street store which has given placements to people on workfare. I personally know 2 people who were offered full time contracts at the end of the deal and one of them is still there over 5 years later.

Workfare can work and get the long term unemployed back into paid work but alot of it has to do with the attitude the person on placement has about the placement.

Never heard of this workfair thing before.

I do think people should work for benefits if they are able to but either Tesco have a jobs or they don't. It's disgusting companies are being allowed to take on cheap labour like this.

If they have work for someone, brilliant - pay them a full wage. If they don't they don't.

Surely major companies are contributing to the recession by taking people on like this? They are not paying them, the tax payer is. The worker is not paying tax or NI, the worker is not earning enough to spend and boost the economy and unemployment remains high damaging confidence whilst Tescos are coining it in.

How the feck do things like this happen - it's a disgrace.

Rant over. V. cross though

' 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?'

Then pay the minimum wage whilst they are working there. Otherwise, it is companies getting away with not paying the minimum wage and YOU, the taxpayer, picking up the bill whilst they and their shareholders profit.

And you think this is a good idea?

I think if Tesco or wherever has full time work for you to do, they should be paying you the national minimum wage. This situation of working for just benefits sounds immoral. It isn't going to get people off benefits. Paying them a decent wage for their work is better.

If there aren't any jobs around then doing some volunteering when you are claiming benefits is fair enough, you get experience and you give something back for the money you are claiming.

But JSA is jobseekers allowance. if they are sending you to do a job then you should be paid for doing the job, as you are actually working. If the companies don't want to take you on permanently, they should offer you a temporary 3 month contract on minimum wage, then if you are shit they can get rid of you at the end of the trial period. Expecting you to work full time and only get 65 pounds a week is just wrong.

It's wrong because the taxpayer foots the bill for the company to make even more profit off the backs of them.

Theres nothing wrong in principle with getting the long term unemployed to work for their benefits but there is something very wrong with expecting people to work for less than minimum wage.
If people must do workfare then they should either only work the hours which would equal their benefit if paid at minimum wage or if they work more hours then they should be paid the extra.
It is outrageous that big companies can exploit the long term unemployed in this way.

How many people here would be happy to work full time for £65 a week? It should at least be topped up to a reasonable level by the company.

Wetherspoons have started doing this too.

My area manager thinks its a fantastic idea and was positively rubbing his hands together with glee when he discovered that he could get free labour

We had our first one through the door a couple of weeks back.
He is bloody fantastic and we will be offering him a permanant contract.

I know a few pub managers though who are just using it in order to get free labour with no intention of ever taking anybody on

Its wrong

For the workfare idea to be at all ethical, it ought to be a matter of getting those on benefits to do the sort of socially-beneficial jobs that councils ought to be doing but can't afford: refurbishing hospital waiting rooms/playgrounds, that sort of thing. Not a matter of enriching corporations that will happily get rid of waged employees and replace them with free ones.

Sorry, jumping back to last page, but as far as I knew, we weren't supposed to train her.

If we were going to train her properly she would have needed to do more hours, (which she couldn't do because of childcare) we would have had to pay for her insurance, get her CRB checked, and spend time that we simply didn't have training someone that we didn't actually need. We were busy, but not to the point where we needed another member of staff, and limitations on equipment, supervising proffessional staff and the like would have meant there was no point in us having another staff member anyway.

I still don't see a problem with making people work for their benefits. Maybe they shouldn't be working in Tescos, but they should be working.

If they are working for a profit making corporation they should be being paid a wage by that corporation - not benefits by the tax payer

I would be ok with people doing community / charity work for benefits - fine - gets people doing stuff, helps their CV, helps the community or charity - but not helping a company make profits - thats explotation and just wrong.

Why should the taxpayer pay someone to work at Tesco for £65 a week? Tesco should pay someone £6 per hour or whatever it is to work at Tesco. They are making money out of the unemployed and further damaging the economy in doing so

So if you refused to do anything to train her, what was she getting out of her "work experience"?

'I still don't see a problem with making people work for their benefits. Maybe they shouldn't be working in Tescos, but they should be working.'

They already do have done for a while. For Tesco, Poundland, Wetherspoon's, Boots, etc. Paid for by the taxpayer.

at the whole workfare thing.

I am a single parent/carer to a child with a disability so am on income support rather than job seekers or new deal. I knew there were hoops to jump through on new deal but I didn't realise about the whole workfare situation. Do people who do workfare have to pay out for childcare? How do childcare costs work?
I do not think corporations should be allowed to take part in this, it should be used differently, e.g. doing some community work which could generate experience and a good reference if you are a good worker. If large companies want staff on short term trials then hire them as temps and pay them at least NMW!

I am at this!

Why aren't they having them do jobs to enrich the community instead of propping up 'evil empire' type private companies? Is this why the BBC is going benefit scrounger crazy at the moment - to prepare the ground for slavery? I don't live in UK anymore and am floored that this is happening. How is this legal?

I will not be shopping in Boots or Tesco. Any more I should think about boycotting?

X-post, not that Poundland and Wetherspoons will particularly miss my custom as one is a rip-off and the other full of meths-drinkers where I live

is there anywhere we can find a list of the. Companies that take advantage of the workfare scheme?