to think Tesco should fucking well PAY THEIR STAFF?

[QueenOfFlippingEverything]

I know, I know, there have been threads about it already.

But this is so rage-inducing, I want THE WHOLE OF EVERYONE to know about it.

Jobcentre advert placed by Tesco for night shift staff. Who will be paid [drumroll] JSA (£67 a week) plus travel expenses.

Why the fucking fuck should Tesco get their staff for free? Why? Their profits last year were something like £3.5 billion last year!

I know who I think is taking the piss here, and its not the unemployed people who will be forced to work night shifts at Tesco for their £67 a week

Raven Ooooh, I can't wait

carernotasaint is about to be on Radio 5 live: www.bbc.co.uk/5live/

You star!

Yippee! This thread's in Discussions of the Day at last :)

Must be carer's new media star status wot did it!

Requiring people receiving unemployment benefit to work - pointless and contradictory

The point of JSA is to allow people to look for work.

Requiring them to spend their time working means they can't fulfil the primary purpose of their day - finding actual paid employment.

Not to mention that forcing people to work for less than the going rate undercuts that very same person when they try to get a real, paying job.

If there is work to be done, then it should be a job.

If there is not, then farting around at the edges trying to make sure people on benefits are busy all the time to prove some moral point is punitive and pointless.

And who else was on that FiveLive Programme? Twuntface Katy Hopkins. She made a point of calling the Boycott Workfare group 'Boycott Work', as if they are actively encourging people not to look for jobs.

It's about 1.50 into the programme if you can bear to listen to the stupid cow sighing dramatically while people talk about workfare. She says 'Any work is good work, even if it's unpaid'

Even the presenter has accused her of being patronising. That woman really is a prize twat.

link here

OMFG please listen to that link above - it's at 1.58 in the programme - and listen to that woman's vile opinions of jobseekers.

Katie Hopkins is just rent a gob.
People hire her when they want the most offensive views possible.
It's her niche.

What a sad individual eh?

Taps Ironically the adverts are probably there because the companies are mentioned so much. Someone else could probably explain this better, but these affiliate programs search text in webpages and put appropriate adverts up, much like search engines can bring up adverts for DHL when you type in 'flange blockage removal'

I got a reply from Chris Grayling's office! It asks me to repost it, so here it is!
Thanks for your message.
I?m afraid you and your fellow posters have completely misunderstood the work experience scheme. It originated from an email sent to me by the mother of a young woman eighteen months ago who said that her daughter had organised a month?s work experience for herself but had been told by the JobCentre that under the rules that existed at the time, she would lose her benefits if she did so. That seemed crazy so we changed the rules to allow claimants to do up to eight weeks work experience while remaining on benefits. We also started to look for employers who would offer work experience to young unemployed people to help give them initial experience in the workplace. This was designed to do a little to tackle the age old problem that if you haven?t got a job you can?t get experience, but you need experience to get a job.
So far we have found nearly 40,000 temporary work experience placements for young people and around half of those have moved off benefits after their period of work experience, with many staying with the employer who offered them the placement.
The scheme is entirely voluntary. Claimants are asked to express a preference for the sector they would like to work in and offered the chance of a placement in that sector if one is available. No placement lasts more than eight weeks, we pay expenses for things like travel and where appropriate childcare, and the participants continue to receive their benefits as normal. No one has to take up a placement, though we would obviously encourage them to do so as the evidence is that this is a good route into getting a job. We have a very wide range of employers involved, across a range of sectors. If they arrive in a placement and find that the chosen employer is wrong for them, they are free to pull out.
There is absolutely no evidence that any employer is using the scheme to replace existing staff, and if there were such evidence, we would not place any further unemployed people with that employer.
All of the evidence is that a short period of work experience is of immense value to unemployed people in securing employment. We intentionally capped the scheme at eight weeks, because we believe that gives an individual enough time to get to know an employer and vice versa, and for them to get some real experience of the workplace, but not long enough for any employer to use it as a way to replace existing staff. In fact most placements are shorter than that ? the Tesco scheme for example lasts a maximum of four weeks.
Again to stress ? we do not have a ?workfare scheme?. We have a voluntary work experience scheme which from first results seems to be playing a really valuable role in helping young unemployed people find their first job ? sometimes in big multinational companies with diverse career opportunities and other times with small local businesses.
I cannot believe that most people would wish anything other than we should do everything we can to help the young unemployed in what are difficult times.
I would be grateful if you could post this reply, since you have posted your original message.
Best wishes
Chris Grayling

I sent another email to him but it really didn't address all the issues and I did get a bit grovelly because I was so surprised to receive an answer (ha, it's more than Tesco are doing!):
Thank you very much for your reply, Mr Grayling. I am very happy to receive it and gratifed by the courteous speed involved in responding.
Unfortunately, I have read a lot of (admittedly) anecdotal evidence to the contrary as regards the actual use of the Workfare scheme even including participants not receiving travel expenses. I also think that what has really upset so many people is that Workfare is used to supply staff to large, commercial businesses in positions that are unlikely to benefit the worker and that the work is unpaid in this respect. To be honest with you, when there was publicity about a young woman complaining that she was forced to work in Poundland a few weeks ago, my reaction was "oh, why is she moaning? It's a job, however lowly, and gives her a wage every week," but now that I know that this was not the case, I understand her complaint. The problem is, even though you say the scheme is voluntary, when someone knows that sanctions may be applied on their benefits if they refuse to join Workfare, the part about it being voluntary is difficult to swallow.
This is a very emotive issue but if Workfare was restricted to work in charitable or voluntary organisations, it showed more relevance to providing a possible career for young people the prportion of young people actually receiving a job was higher (Tesco's own published figures about the number of job provided was low when compared to the number of staff supplied) and there was also the possibility of receiving actual qualifications, such as an NVQ or Health & Safety certificate that would genuinely improve prospects of employment, I think that many people would be less upset.
Twelve years ago I was placed in a job training scheme that gave me an NVQ in Business Administration and 6 weeks' work experience in the office of a national charity. I really did find that training invaluable and ended up with a career a a PA to a company director (not the best paid work, but full of job satisfaction!). The difference is that this training was productive and really did help me find work, where it is difficult to see how much benefit many of the Workfare job placements really provide. Like most people, I am thinking from the heart on this issue but even when the head finally engages itself, there are still grave reservations.
Again, thank you for your reply. I've never written to a parliamentary office before and I am surprised (for some reason) but delighted to receive an acknowledgement. It is good to know that you do pay attention to what people think. I see that your reply was sent at almost 11pm on a Sunday evening so there can be no complaints about your work ethic!
*that's my head I'm referring to as getting into gear, by the way - not everyone elese's!
I've missed out so many things - the withdrawal of EMA, the exploitation of disabled people, teh media blackout on this issue, the cuts in public sector jobs that can't be covered by the private sector, the increase in government borrowing that could have been used to fund new jobs, the fact that he couldn't deny he'd been talking rubbish about Sir Terry Leahy...
Still, at least we know that's the government position at the moment. Interesting to find out that they've been reading Mumsnet and that they aren't happy the story's out!
There are so many more answers needed and I have too much baby brain to properly clarify what they are! Who wants to harangue the government better than I can?

"I?m afraid you and your fellow posters have completely misunderstood the work experience scheme."

"We have a very wide range of employers involved, across a range of sectors."

really? without wishing to be a 'job snob', there are none that fit my qualifications. and how does Superdrug Savers meld seamlessly with the poster's daughter below, a qualified vet?

"If they arrive in a placement and find that the chosen employer is wrong for them, they are free to pull out."

well, for a while they are. after the first week, they're fucked. and he ought to sign on for a while, spend time in JobCentres and see how 'voluntary' these schemes feel.

"There is absolutely no evidence that any employer is using the scheme to replace existing staff, and if there were such evidence, we would not place any further unemployed people with that employer."

There is heaps of evidence, all of which he is ignoring. Basically you think that the electorate are scumbag liars, don't you Mr G?

If it's voluntary why does the DWP literature I linked to state it's 'required'?

" It originated from an email sent to me by the mother of a young woman eighteen months ago who said that her daughter had organised a month?s work experience for herself but had been told by the JobCentre that under the rules that existed at the time, she would lose her benefits if she did so"

In response to this point , three years ago a friend was sent to a private company where she was told to find work or lose benefits. She had been diagnosed as having PTSD after an accident at work. She was told that because there was so little work available she could take a voluntary unpaid post in a local charity shop. And that is where she was sent.

So over 3 years ago it wasn't the case that people who did voluntary work would lose benefits.

I used to volunteer for ADaction (drugs charity) Many of the fellow volunteers were ex addicts on benefits, this was 11 years ago.

Grayling either doesn't understand the policies of his own dept or he is lying. (I suspect he doesn't actually understand because it appears that our elected MPs no longer make policy but implement policies written by private companies and individuals who will profit)

and in any case, what does working for free to increase the profits of private companies have to do with volunteering in a charity setting? surely he's not so thick that he can't see there's a wee difference there?

btw i think the 'mother of a young woman' bollix is supposed to appeal to us. cos we is all muvvers, yeah?

Why is he speaking as though this only affects 'young' people [presumably in the 18-24 bracket]?

It affects single parents lots of whom are way over 24 yrs of age.

So this is not a leg up scheme for those young people who cant get a chance, come on Chris do you think we are stupid?

What about the disabled people who will be expected to do workfare? for an unlimited time period what about them Chris?

I am 37, im a carer as my child is disabled on middle rate care DLA, under the proposed changes I will no longer be entitled to claim carers meaning that I will have to sign on for jobseekers allowance and will be expected to participate in workfare despite my caring responsibilities which will remain even though my sons DLA entitlement will change

What chance is workfare going to give me ?

Ive done retail work it wont teach me anything new!

Chris why dont you go and look into why there is no funding for wrap around childcare for children with disabilities? if there was I could work, as it stands im one of those people chasing a magical job opportunity consisting of hours between 10am-2pm mon-fri, term time only.

God, he must think we are stupid.

From the Daily Mail article comments: link

These work shy scroungers should be forced to work at Tesco and, if they don't get an A1 report from the store, their benefits should be stopped and their children taken into care. If anyone is disabled or unemployed for more than six months, their children should be taken for permanent adoption - adopters should have to pay a fee for each child, this would certainly help the country's deficit and the children would get a new start in life which would be great for them. There is also nothing to stop disabled people stacking shelves in most cases, as there are electric trollies that go up and down that would get them up to the shelves they can't reach. It is wrong that disabled people are allowed to get lazy in this country, by saying they are in pain etc. Haven't they discovered painkillers yet? This should not be an excuse to not work as the exercise will help them recover.

I never knew such thick, bigoted people existed. Take babies away from disabled people and sell them... 'Margaret of London' you are thicker than the thickest pig shit and have just as much empathy.

woolly, that thing that said that is disgusting, I wish her a life of suffering, what a bitch

Going back to R5 last night:

Grayling says 8 week stints not viable labour, can't displace paid jobs. So why did Tesco give 17yo Leahy school holiday job?

And is that short enough for a tweet, should anyone like it...

I think Chris Grayling's response is inadequate, to say the least.

I am also scared, in the sense of how frightening it is that either he has no idea what he and his department are doing, or that he is blatantly lying to us/the general public. Having only to google 'workfare' to see details about it, I am of the belief that it is the latter.

'Work experience' and 'workfare' are two completely seperate things.

As for the comment mentioned above, and many others I have seen, I cannot think of what to say in response.

I would only say one thing....people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I have seen so much sneering and 'looking down noses' kind of attitudes, which do seem to be changing, but I think that it's well worth remembering that your life can be turned upside down, or changed irrevocably, just like that.

Maplin have stopped ....

Well said MrsDeeBee.

I really don't think people who think this is a good thing have a clue about the consequences of such a scheme becoming accepted and common practice. If people are really going to get into jobs they should be paid from the start.

I am glad Maplin have pulled out.

I still haven't heard the radio 5 broadcast, will try and listen to it later.