to boycott shops that use forced unpaid labour (aka slavery)?

[ChickenLickn]

These stores:

Boots,
Tesco,
Asda,
Primark,
Argos,
TK Maxx,
Poundland,
Arcadia group of stores run by billionaire Sir Philip Green, which includes Top Shop and Burton,

are all using 'workfare' schemes, forcing jobseekers to work 30 hrs/week unpaid for 6 months in profit making companies or face losing their jobseekers benefits. Mre details here.

Please avoid shopping in these shops as much as possible, this is basically slavery and is illegal under human rights law (and currently being challenged in the courts).

The good news is that Waterstones and Sainsburys have recently pulled out of the scheme.

I am against workfare as it is being run.

But there is lots of simply wrong information on this thread.

If you are doing workfare you are covered by insurance and a whole host of other legislation. Employees may say you're not - but you are.

We currently have a lad on a work placement from the local Job Centre. He has to work up to 30 hrs per week, decided between himself and us (employer). The maximum period is 8 weeks, minimum 2 weeks. They get help with travel expenses and special equipment if necessary. They have to express an interest in wanting to work in a particular field, ours is motor trade, then come for an interview and agree hours and length of time. They need to attend their usual appointments to sign on and still be actively looking for work, therefore are allowed time off to attend interviews. They can turn it down after the first week if it's not where they want be but after that any issues with lateness, lack of motivation, etc can be taken up with the Job Centre. I don't believe this is conducive to letting full or part time employees go as the placements are so short term and sporadic if they're actively looking for work. By the time you've got them doing the job perfectly theyve finished the placement. That doesn't make good economic sense, Phillip Green et al didn't become millionaires by making bad economic decisions.
You'll rarely get sent people that don't want the opportunity to gain experience, a good reference and hopefully a job or the Job Centre would run out of placements pretty damn quick. Our lad has so impressed us I'm looking into an apprenticeship for him.
I suggest some of you need to actually look at facts rather than what you read in the papers.

i agree with D0oin this is my problem with schemes like that on commercial premises, but I have no problem with it where community work is concerned (and it does not have to include grafitti scrubbing, there should be some level of flexibility to get the best fit for the claimant).

creighton is one forced into scheme like that from day one? or is there some period where people are given opportunity to find work as they find appropriate and if they do not then this scheme kicks in...

I am on JSA after being made redundant in November, (Whilst on maternity leave with DC2) From a job which paid £8 per hour 11.30 until 3.30, These are the only hours I can work as DH works 4pm until 2am, gets home at 2.30am and goes to bed around 4am.

If I was asked to go on this workfare scheme, I don't think I could do it unless they could give me hours between 11.30 and 3.30, How would I afford childcare?

I would have no problem doing 10 hours of placement which would equate to NMW.

Exactly, Dooin. Shop needs 100 staff. Would they rather pay all 100 of them NMW, or would they rather get as many as posisble for free? Which is going to maximise THEIR profits more? .

It is PEOPLE being traded like a COMMODITY. WE ARE PEOPLE TOO. We are being traded as cheap/ free labour to big businesses, in return for party donations. We are being treated like commodities to be traded for the most profit FOR OTHER PEOPLE. And saying that we expect a minimum payment of NMW for doing so gets us lambasted. And told that we shouldn't feel so 'entitled' to money for nothing. But we DON'T want money for nothing. We want NMW in return for our labour. If it was 'nothing' we were doing, then these businesses wouldn't be taking ON the Workfare participants, would they? They aren't going to take them on to sit there doing 'nothing', are they? Nope, they are taking the Workfare participant on to do a job that SHOULD command the NMW. Thus taking away a job opportunity for someone looking for NMW work.

Pantah630 - This may be how it HAS worked, under New Deal. It is NOT how it is GOING to work under the new Workfare programme. ANYONE who doesn't meet their 'conditionality threshold' will be FORCED to do workfare.

And I am NOT getting my information from 'the papers', but from the Universal Credit Policy Briefing Notes.

Huntycat - That might be true. But tbh you have posted so much other misinformation that i do question the info you post.

Seriously? You seriously think Philip Green, the BILLIONAIRE Philip Green who has registered his company in his wife's name in Monaco to avoid tax, has our (the UK) economic interests at heart? He has his economic interests at heart.

Anyone who thinks Tesco, Mr Green or any of these other big businesses are doing us a favour out of the goodness of their hearts is very, very naive.

Pantah what you describe is not what Tescos et al do. If only they did! What you are doing sounds helpful.

I get my information from broadsheets, blogs of people who have participated in these schemes, court documents and government produced documents plus some academic research papers.

And now I'm done. What more can I say? If social, political, moral or economic argument can't make the point them what will? Let's hope those of you living in your ivory towers never have to confront the reality first hand.

I'm sick of hardworking, tax paying families subsidising massive businesses in making even more profits.

You cannot possibly compare an internship that may lead to bigger things and is part of a career trajectory (I.e making tea at Vogue) to an internship stacking shelves at tesco.

You cannot possibly compare individuals choosing to take on dead end jobs to support their families or pay for their education to being forced to do these jobs by the state for a pittance. It's funny how these schemes don't crop up in periods of high employment where people could say no and then find a job of their own. if they're that good and empowering and self esteem building the schemes would stand on these merits and be available to all at all times.

Undercutting the nmw helps no one, apart from the businesses that now don't have to pay it. it will cost the country more as less is generated through tax and ni as has been explained upthread. Also, it's such a waste to educate people to a high level and then insist they stack shelves for tuppence.

Big businesses should not be allowed to profit through having free labour from workfare.

They should employ these people though their normal terms and conditions, this would be far more productive on unemployment levels and not exploitative.

I don't disagree with the idea of the scheme (it does look better than not working, on a CV for those who are presumably trying to find work), however it should be charity work or something similar, not helping big businesses rake in more profits. ridiculous.

Bemybebe, if the scheme really were to offer some valuable training or an apprenticeship at a reasonable rate of pay, it would be worth offering to the unemployed. it is not. it is just free labour being offered to profit making businesses.

what about my point about reasonable training? i have learned something new in each job/post that i have held over the years. i am not against retraining or moving into another field. what is the government doing to help the well educated (through work and academic study) who now find themselves without work?

are posters serious in thinking that people with extensive work experience and contributions to this country should be grateful to exchange 40 hours work for 10 hours of nmw while not gaining any skills or work opportunities.

cakewench, it will 'look good' on a cv if you can explain what you did. i.e.

internship at tesco/boots/whereever
-NVQ in retail studies, including customer care
-learned staff management as a team leader of a team of 6
-got a certificate in health and safety and food hygiene, etc
-worked flexibly over a 24 hour shift.

does anyone really think that the workfare candidates will be able to write this on their cv?

As someone who did the hiring for a small office once upon a time, yes, I think seeing that on a young person's CV gives me a good starting point for discussing what they're capable of doing in a real work environment. But then, I'm from the US originally and probably biased more towards people with experience rather than people with degrees, especially for entry level type positions.

If you're older and have been in the workforce previously, then no, those sort of things might not be impressive. It does show that you're keen and actively trying to get out there again.

(I've read the childcare issues, I'm not disagreeing with these things on a personal level. I am simply saying, as someone who has had to read through CVs, it looks better than a great big gap. Which I, myself, have now that I've been home with my son for a few years, and am painfully aware of what I'll go through when I want to try to get a job again.)

Happy Mummy of One do you claim your Child Benefit? Child Benefit is paying you for your lifestyle choice is it not.
And as Tesco et al are exploiting workfare workers then why the fuck are they being allowed to sell FAIR TRADE goods. Fair Trade goods are meant to symbolize a fair days work for a fair days pay ......oh hang on though does that only count when the workers in question arent residing in Britain.
Hypocrisy at its worst.

I think it is a brilliant idea in theory but it doesn't seem to be working in practice. I think that there are three things that should be aimed for in a workfare placement:-

1. Experience in a field that they wish to go into.
2. A real possibility of a job at the end of it (and in the case of a company that takes on a lot of these evidence that a decent proportion have been taken on in the past)
3. Work that helps society.

A workfare placement should only go ahead if at least two of these are being filled. So the girl who wants to go into retail could work in the BHF shop but could only work in tescos if they demonstrate there is a maybe job at the end.

If only one is fulfilled then the person has the choice whether they want to do it. (So the lad who wants to go into catering could work in the BHF shop cos he's bored at home or he could hold out until a role comes up in a local hospital kitchen.)

What it shouldn't be is a way of tescos making extra profits!

If these companies really need people to fill these jobs, then they should pay the going rate. I have no issue with very short term work trials, with a view to employing those who seem promising, but 6 months of getting work done for your company at taxpayers' expense is taking the biscuit, quite frankly.

The so called YTS and similar schemes of the 90s were no better. Employers got cheap staff that they only had to pay £10 on top of their benefits, then usually dumped them when the time was up, rather than putting them on payroll.

It just seems to be being massively abused by the big companies. It's almost as if they've cosied up to the Tories in collusion. But that'll just be me being all paranoid and pinko, won't it?

Thanks OP, for bringing this up. I hadn't even heard about this scheme before and I really want to know more.

Slavery?! Have you ever read about slavery?! People working for fear of their lives...people sexually abused, mentally and physically abused. People fearing for the safety of their families. Mostly n return for nothing...more threats, more violence, more work.

Your example is not slaver. It is people who can work working for their benefits instead of receiving them for no work.

Yes coraltoes it is about slavery - forced labour for no wage and they were deprived of the right to compensation, deprived of the right to refuse, and deprived of the right to leave - until the legal challenge, and the DWP minister then changed his mind and announced they could leave during the first week if they didn't like it.

So, it is exactly about slavery.

Please bear in mind that JSA is a social insurance scheme. We all pay into it through taxes and NI so that we are supported if the worst should happen i.e. we become unemployed or disabled or too old to work.

This is the social insurance scheme I have been paying into, and they are now saying people must become slaves and do other peoples jobs in order to claim it? NO WAY. Don't let them get away with it!

How long do people have to be unemployed for this to be used?

It was to qualify them for their Jobseekers allowance. You know, the money they get for being out of work. I know someone who was on this scheme and actually liked having a job to attend, a bit of experience to add to her cv and something to do whilst applying for other jobs. Shop work is not demeaning, or back breaking, it builds skills, which will make people more employable when growth is restored.

So they are telling them to work for their money, when they are physically and mentally capable to work? Wow, shocking.

coral, you are missing the point by a country mile. Shop WORK is fine if it's a job where you are paid. Workfare means Tescos are getting free labour courtesy of the taxpayer. If Tesco has work that needs to be done, they should pay people to do it.