Mumsnet should stop running ads from workfare companies

[stella1w]

eg. Boots

There would have to be a poll taken with the majority disagreeing with those companies advertising, tbf.

NEWSPAPERS should stop running ads from workfare companies.
MUMSNET would be a good start :)

There's all this fuss about workfare, but it seems to me that it can depend how is company uses it, surely? I mean, some might be using it as free labour (and I've read the stories), but maybe some are using it for what it was intended - a way to give people useful work experience, or even a trial period ending in a job.

The scheme is massively open to abuse, but that doesn't mean all the companies are abusing it. So I'm not sure about a blanket boycott.

I would be delighted to see a Mumsnet ban on ads from workfare companies.

I would support this if it covered every company and organisation which has taken on people via workfare since it was introduced by the Labour government in 2009.

If it is wrong in principle, it's been wrong all along.

I think it would be better for MN to stand clear, though.

Do you include the charity participants? Banardos & Age Concern for exame?

Also do we need to stop discussing Greggs & McDonalds so much?

I don't think we should ban the ads. The schemes are short term work experience opportunities that people volunteer to do to and often results in people coming off benefits and getting a job. The big companies have to supervise, train, provide uniform and manage the volunteers. I really don't get all the fuss. How is it diff. to companies that use interns? (apart from that internships tend to last longer and the job centre isn't involved).

And they guaranteed that if people drop out they won't loose their benefits, which sounds sensible.

They don't provide uniforms for one , well Tesco don't

Of course charities have to be included!

If it's wrong in principle, then it's wrong. Charities should pay their staff, or use those who have chosen to volunteer.

I think it's a daft and pointless idea.

do not know what workfare is but it sounds no difference than work experience. Why are people whining about this?

Many internships are considered pretty exploitative Sarcalogos.

The National Union of Journalists, Bectu (entertainment industry union) and others have been running a campaign against so-called internships where young people are made to do a full-time job for free without any real training or mentorship, often for ages and with no chance of a real job at the end of it.

They have been saying that interns should at the very least get minimum wage. The NUJ was successful in their test case so if your kids or anyone you know have Interned as journalists in the last few years they could get back pay.

I completely agree with the idea of a workfare boycott btw.

Lol at minimisschief

I do not know what torture is, but it sounds no worse than tarte aux citrons. Why are people moaning about it?

Unpaid internships worry me greatly.

Especially charities who use them (even auction them FFS!).

Good idea for this to be included - less regulated and far more abusive.

I heard on the news that over 50% of the people who have been on workfare are now in paid employment. Surely that is a good thing?

I do have an issue with firms like Tesco using it though, because they can afford to pay their own staff. Where I think it works well is for small businesses to be able to take on additional staff without initial cost to see whether there is a corresponding increase in productivity and turnover.

That's an "estimate" Ali and so far nobody (in authority or a reputable journo even) seems to have actually provided any real figures, or even pointed to a person or company and said "This person" or "this shop" to show even one person who has. It's all very vague and waffly "we think" and "it is estimated" with no actual evidence at all...

Anyone who considers it whining I hope either yours or your partner's PAID job is nixed and replaced by free labour next.

People in work should fear this just as much as people out of work. It's contracting the work market and will continue to do so as long as it's allowed to remain.

Tesco for example have had an estimated 1500 placements. Only 300 were given proper paid work as a result.

GIVE. A . SHIT

really

A4e, Tesco etc are royally taking the piss and our money. It's a fecking shameful businesss all round.
A ban here would be meaningless but naice.

"Tesco for example have had an estimated 1500 placements. Only 300 were given proper paid work as a result."

Well, 1200 of them could have been lazy and crap at the job.

There are no companies in the UK signed up to "Workfare".

Workfare is the name of the scheme in America.

Why didn't they just employ 300 out of work people instead? Obviously the jobs exist.

Private companies should not benefit from taxpayer money when they are making BILLIONS in profit.

I have a slightly different view on this, I disagree with some companies' use of it, but my young brother DID get a paid job at the end of it & whilst doing it felt he had a purpose for the first time in ages.

Also, I think that blanket boycotts & advertising bans are disingenuous. The equivalent if you like of 'leave the bastard'.

Presumably we should all also stop donating to the charities involved too? Would it not be less passive aggressive & perhaps more effective to write to the company (charity) in question setting out your concerns?

Boycotts have little or no effect unless a significant enough section of the population participate. In reality it is highly unlikely that a company like Tesco will be significantly affected.

"Why didn't they just employ 300 out of work people instead?"

They have employed 300 out of work people.

They had a similar think in the U.S....can't remember the details but I DO remember it involved bussing single parents out to factories sometimes 50 miles plus away from home and their DC being in daycare.

Very odd way of working things out.