To think these stewards at the pageant should have been treated better

[enimmead]

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

"A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday."

Ok - so it's the Guardian but it seems these people were bussed in as part of the new deal programme to get work experience, had to camp out.

"Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.

The firm said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.

The woman said that people were picked up at Bristol at 11pm on Saturday and arrived in London at 3am on Sunday. "We all got off the coach and we were stranded on the side of the road for 20 minutes until they came back and told us all to follow them," she said. "We followed them under London Bridge and that's where they told us to camp out for the night ? It was raining and freezing."

A 30-year-old steward told the Guardian that the conditions under the bridge were "cold and wet and we were told to get our head down [to sleep]". He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor."

Maybe they had to wait under the bridge after the long coach trip but it does not sound very good.

I dont believe it.

I can easily believe it. Bloody slavery- It's what Scameron wants. :(

Yes they should have been treated better. Whatever you think about the rights or wrongs of workfare it can't be right to not make proper shelter and sanitary provisions for your workers.

It's an absolute disgrace.

I find it dismaying how it's becoming acceptable to have unemployed people work for nothing on the dubious basis that it will make them more employable.

People should be paid for their labour. Simple as.

Bollocks. No way did it happen as reported.

Which bit don you think is wrong - the zero pay, the sleeping under London bridge...?

the reporting is typically Guardian.

Most were paid, not unpaid.

they didn't need to sleep under a bridge - they were dropped off at London bridge at 3.30am to start work at 5am. If some people chose to sleep there that's their problem.

Yes, it sounds like the organisation wasn't very good - but one day's work isn't going to kill them

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits...

Utter bollocks. Since when has complaining about anything seen people lose their benefits.

What a crock of crap that article is.

I can kind of believe it. The people to blame here are the company Close Protection UK. They and other companies are clearly exploiting the scheme. They have probably pitched for the security contract knowing quite well they've pitched too low. I see this happening all the time, corners being cut etc.

I wonder how many of these people were a actually suitable to do the job. I bet CP UK didn't check that thoroughly.

They have probably pitched for the security contract knowing quite well they've pitched too low. I see this happening all the time, corners being cut etc

I agree.

I can't believe the responses on here.
The Guardian exposed the 'phone hacking scandal. So, why the hell would a good paper with a reputation lie.
Shelleyboobs there is more than enough evidence to show that if you complain you lose benefits.
And no, one days work will not kill them, but neither would it kill them to be treated with dignity and respect.

so if they weren't supposed to sleep what where they supposed to do at 3.30 in London with no money? read an improving book by torchlight?

I cant believe people fall for this bullshit!

so if they weren't supposed to sleep what where they supposed to do at 3.30 in London with no money? read an improving book by torchlight?

Practice their forelock tugging of course....

thsi is just work ganging by another name, but i suppose in some people's mindd if its aiding Royalty its ok 'cos its tradition, innit....

For the £1.5 million pounds we paid the security company from our public purse, yes they should have bloody paid their staff!

liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/05/where-did-1-5m-for-river-pageant-stewarding-go/

And sorted out proper accommodation!

We paid £1.5 million for adequate stewarding and crowd management, for the river pageant (direct link):

www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions/md1005

Proper accomodation for 1 1/2 hour?

The Guardian is a joke of a newspaper, with a massive agenda against the current government.

As i said on the other thread being treated like shit is common in the industry workfare or not. We should start with the industry first.

for a 14 hour shift.

Yes, the workers must be paid.

The Guardian is a reputable paper with a massive agenda against the current government. It doesn't mean it's lying.

"lose Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.

The firm said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits."

"Both stewards said they were originally told they would be paid. But when they got to the coach on Saturday night, they said, they were told that the work would be unpaid and that if they did not accept it they would not be considered for well-paid work at the Olympics.

Molly Prince, managing director of Close Protection UK, said in a statement: "We take the welfare of our staff and apprentices very seriously indeed.

"The staff travelling to the jubilee are completing their training and being assessed on the job for NVQ Level 2 in spectator safety after having completed all the knowledge requirements in the classroom and some previous work experience. It is essential that they are assessed in a live work environment in order to complete their chosen qualifications.

"The nature of festival and event work is such that we often travel sleeping on coaches through the night with an early morning pre-event start ? it is the nature of the business ? It's hard work and not for the faint-hearted.

"We had staff travel from several locations and some arrived earlier than others at the meeting point, which I believe was London Bridge, which was why some had to hang around. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances but not lack of care on the part of CPUK."

The company said it had spent up to £220 on sponsoring security training licences for each participant and that boots and combat trousers cost more than £100"

So it's a free training program to see if they can work at the Olympics.
And they get to keep the trousers and boots :)

Can I borrow some of those right-wing blinkers for the next time my MIL drags me into Laura Ashley .

I saw this earlier today and wasn't surprised. The company has made an unfeasibly low bid to get the contract. They have then blackmailed people into working for free or for the stonking £2 odd/hour by dangling normally paid Olympic work over their heads. I am going to be so shocked when they choose to use more 'trainees' during the Olympics rather than these people, who they'd actually have to pay then.

If they'd have gone for staff with security licenses and experience they'd still have needed to pay for the delightful uniform, but would also have needed to pay at least £6.08/hour (National Minimum for over 21s), and probably more.

So - just let me get this straight - this is a private company that has been given the contract for security, yes? I just want to be clear about this.

It won the contract. Which must have been very competitive as they weren't paying their staff.