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

Harriet Baldwin

www.harriettbaldwin.com/contact

www.harriettbaldwin.com/

Couldnt watch newsnight. (DH likes Shameless) Will catch up tomorrow. I am glad the light is being shined on the Mandatory Work Activity at last.
Lets keep the pressure on.

Do you think the pressure will be kept up ? Or will what Tesco are saying (and others may also) appease people ?

I suspect that there is a black out any mention of the wrag group because politicians believe that by focussing on the previously vilified lazy youth they can still scrabble together some public support.

Also I suspect that if people become aware of the situation with the wrag group there is no way of wriggling out of this and no hope of damage limitation to their "Work programme"

Maybe this is where we need to focus more attention now.

I agree, mini. I think it's appalling that they have concentrated their 'arguement' as 'helping young people'.

It doesn't just apply to 'young people' it applies to everyone.

Agree with your last post mini, absolutely.

And at being an anti-capitalist extremist!

It is deliberate they have a clear agenda. This "its for young lay abouts" is an easier battle, that's why we are being deflected away from exposing the situation with other groups in particular the wrag group.

you might be, tapsel, but look at the screeds and screeds of angry comment on the DM site. these are not people who have a moral problem with people being made to work, by and large, more that they are being made to work for large companies who have no intention of employing them. this story has been reported for months now, the catchfire moment was when it became clear that Tesco was involved and advertising.

(though i was told in no uncertain terms by 'Jade' of Tesco CS that the whole advert had been a typo... )

Interesting comment:

^"These schemes are illegal under British and international law. Why no one has tought of a class action suit is beyond me and why the TUC haven't taken this to the ILO is also beyond me. these schemes include the provision of labour these jobs are utilizing unskilled labour they are not apprentiships there is no training and under international agreements the UK is a signatory to all workers have a right to collectively bargain. You can't collectively bargain your benefits and those on these schemes are denied the oppertunity to join workers unions forthe organisations they are working for in Tesco's this would be USDAW. This makes the schemes illegal as they undermine workers rights to collectively bargain before we come to question of forced and coerced labour and not being paid..."

• cbarr^

^21 February 2012 6:55PM

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/21/free-labour-job-snob-iain-duncan-smith

i would contend re keeping story going that what is needed are better examples than the chap on channel four news tonight, who wasn't particularly articulate about why as a qualified electrical engineer it wasn't for him to be working in superdrug.

btw what is this bollox about people choosing which sector they wish to work in... it's pretty much retail or nowt from what i can see.

This is about how the taxpayer funds the big four supermarkets because they don't pay their employees a living wage - so even without the disgusting workfare scheme people working for these shops can't afford to live on the crap wages they pay.

SCameron acually says he thinks a "living wage is a good idea" in the link.

I agree Aitch, why do these researchers choose to interview people who don't express themselves very well.

I think it's just retail, manufacturing is dead, these people who are being coerced into this forced labour are being written off.

However in view of the fact that Mckinsey wrote most of the NHS bill, maybe the big retailers had some input into the bill on welfare with particular reference to work experience.

I think we also need to focus on how its a conflict of interest for the charities involved and they could end up causing a benefit sanction for someone they should actually be helping and advising.
I also think concentrating on the wrag group is an excellent idea. Also the fact that they want ill and disabled people to do work placements for an INDEFINATE period.

I thought Newsnight was a really good opportunity to get the message across. We disagree with the whole thing,

Discredited companies providing services that the JC are supposed to provide, from what I have read in the main people are just sat round sharing out of date old newspapers and crappy comps and these companies are paid millions.

WRAG is an abomination, for a so called civilised society.

I will attend my first demo/march, on the 3rd becaused I am so pissed off with this govt, in general tbh but I think these empty words will appease many.

This from the Guardian. If you scan down the page where it says Work Programme Referrals it shows that the biggest number being referred are the over 25s (therefore the ones with experience) not the 16-24s

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/21/rise-unemployment-strain-work-programme

The Wright Stuff, Workfare being discussed.

SerialKipper - I saw the Newsnight interview and I was practically chewing the TV. There was a new scheme called The Youth Contract Scheme announced by Nick Clegg yesterday which gives employers £2200 to take on a 16 - 17 yr old.

The Minister on Newsnight only seemed to want to talk about that new Youth Contract Scheme but did not want to talk about the other existing workfare schemes that are 'mandatory' which the unemployed people on the programme kept referring to. She just kept saying they were confused.

They were not confused - they were older people talking directly about their experience of what is really happening in the existing mandatory workfare schemes.

It is clear that employers are embarrased by the allegations being made about workfare and are withdrawing from it temporarily while Govt are trying to rejig the scheme to make is sound less mandatory but I would like to see a clear statement by Cameron today in PMQs saying all mandatory and forced work schemes have been scrapped and no one will face sanctions for refusing to work for no wage.

I'm a history teacher currently taking my year rights through the hit rowing but necessary history of slavery, so I realise that I'm probably more sensitive than ever, but can we PLEASE stop using the word 'slaves' and 'slavery' in this context? Slavery is sometimes referred to as 'the black holocaust' and it just seems SO disrespectful to use it in such an inaccurate way.

This debate is meaningful and essential, but calling it 'slavery' just undermines any argument immediately, I feel.

Year eights - stupid phone

Oh gosh 'harrowing' not 'hit rowing'! I give up....

knitknack - while I don't disagree with your comment I would add that slavery comes in many forms.

Being forced to work without pay in return for basic subsistence andunder threat of having that subsistence withdrawn if you dont comply is slavery.

mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=586&page=1#137921,9606.0

Figures for workfare

sorry knitknack, if you're a good teacher you'll be able to handle that one, i think. while i haven't personally used the word slave, i've been using forced labour, in a modern context i think they're pretty much one and the same. using it in its modern (as in happening now all over the world form) doesn't undermine what happened before, indeed i would contend that it makes it more relevant.

Dictionary definition of the term Slave

One is legally bound in absolute obedience and servitude to a person or other to perform labour.

Black civil rights campaigners who have claimed the word Black Holocaust should ask themselves this.

Were they slaves, by the above definition they were, was it a holocaust-NO

Even basic historical research into slavery will show that this was not solely victimising Africans. There were plenty of white slaves (and I don't mean the indentured ones) who were taken by North African pirates never to be seen again. Entire villages gone in some cases.

Slavery as a topic can be narrowly focussed on the period where Europeans gleefully took part however it lasted long before we were involved and it continues long after we abolished it. Just to clarify as it is annoying when children are only taught part of the story.

These days slavery is still abundant in many African and Middle Eastern countries. As a historian I hope you are able to give a well-rounded discussion.

This scheme, people are using the term slavery perhaps wrongly however the meaning is the same. Work for nothing. If someone has worked, paid National Insurance then they have paid into the system that should be helping them when times are bad, not being made to do freebies for multi-billion £ companies.