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.

Like I said I saw many event marshalls in organge hi vis jackets looking as bewildered as most of the crowd who couldn't gain access to the riverside. I rememeber thinking how out of place they looked and of course they were.

They looked a bit lost and now we now why. Would be interesting to find out how they were briefed. Even if you were briefed you would need a rudimentary kowledge of the riverside area and baeyond. It's not like working at a festival where you are in a smaller area.

The issue is that the workers were on benefits and would lose them if the company paid them, but due to the nature of security work I should imagine it would be difficult to have them on the payroll until the Olympics. This sort of work is casual and seasonal, usually done by students and part time workers.

It is wrong to expect people to do a job in return for no pay even if they are receiving some ridiculous training. People should be able to work part time and not lose their benefits - they should be able to delcare the work they have done - like a stint of security work during the Olympics - and be able to return to JObseekers (or whatever its called now) when that seasonal work is over, with no fuss.

Its a clear case of exploitation.

Not to mention that the unemployed get such a pitiful amount on JSA - £71 a week, or only £56.25 if they are under 25.

A proper diet for one person now costs about £46 a week. After paying for water, gas, electricity and phone they are probably already in debt. After the housing benefits cuts they will definitely be in debt.

And that's before they even get on a bus/ have a coffee/pint/ buy clothes/ a birthday card/ a TV licence/ a newspaper.

What a shit life!

I really think there are two issues here.

In principle I'm not opposed to people on benefits taking part in unpaid work experience for a set time to gain skills and experience for work. There has also been no suggestion from an official source that complaining/refusing would have meant anyone's benefits would have been cut.

The outrageous thing as far as I can see is the way that all of these workers (paid and unpaid alike) were treated. Why were people with no idea of the local area bussed in overnight? Why were they left under a bridge for 90minutes in the rain, in the middle of the night? Not provided with sanitation or changing facilities. This is scandalous behaviour by an employer- I can't think if anyone who would accept this as an employee unless they bloody had to. Therefore this company is not fit to hold public contracts like this. The 'workfare' element is a red herring.

"This sort of work is casual and seasonal, usually done by students and part time workers."

That's a good point. It's not training people for permanent work. Even if they do get the Olympic work, it'll be for a few weeks, and then what?

Then they'll have to make a new claim, which can take weeks, and they'll have NO INCOME at all while they wait. How will they eat / pay the rent? They'd suffer considerable hardship in this time.

Also they won't be classed as long term unemployed anymore, and so not eligible for the help available to get long-term unemployed back to work - they'll have to wait 6 months to get back where they started.

The dole isn't designed to support seasonal / occasional work.

Sarcalogos - it adds to the level of exploitation and deprivation the workers were facing.

Seeing as they couldn't even afford a coffee, they had no alternative but to sleep under the bridge, and could not afford to leave the swampy campsite they were taken to, or to change their mind and catch a train home.

They were effectively imprisoned by poverty.

:(

I agree they were treated abominably. Did you see my second paragraph?

They were treated like shite because the company is shite. this is wrong, and I can quite see why they hated it. But it's nowt to do with work experience.

Its just legal ganging. Are we trying to prove we have as many peasants as China?

clytaemnestra I was there on the day of the boat pageant. It was manned mostly by stewards from Close Protection.

It was a disgrace that such an event was put in the hands of a company who sought to protfit from Workfare.

Work experience is one thing. Jeopardising public safety is unforgiveable. These people weren't shadowing: as if that would be acceptable on such as day.

They were all clueless and either nervous or shirty with the public who were understandably cross with the inept management of the crowd.

I don't particularly blame them given what I know now. I'm just grateful there wasn't a major incident because they couldn't have coped and such a huge event should never be put in the hands of that company - they're back in inaction at the Olympics.

I will be complaining to the Met, Close Protection, the DWP and the office of that offensively grinning fool, Boris Johnson.

Crowd management for Tuesday - the day of the fly past - was the responsibility of a company callled Showsec. It was equallly inept but in a much more aggressive and offiensive way. Thiink thick and belligerent bouncers at a dodgy nightclub.

An absolute disgrace that marred what should have been a proud occasion.

They were treated like shite because they had no power to do anything about it - a recipe for abuse.

Have you heard of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Stanford prison experiment?]]

The similarities - the lack of sanitation, the degrading changing in public, the disorientation, the trap of being transported far, with no financial means of leaving - are frightening.

I'm struggling to get excited.

From what I can tell, one coach carrying a few dozen stewards out of 7000 turned up an hour early and so two or three people decided to have a snooze under a bridge.

But those two people refuse to be identified, for wholly spurious reasons. and we don't know the extent to which they are exaggerating.

I did some stewarding when I was 18, I distinctly remember working with this man in his 50s, he was a conscientious objector to employment from what he said, a life-long drifter, and did a couple of days stewarding so he was shown to be looking for work.

And I thought the stewards were absolutely fine. Have been to events staffed by aggressive gorillas in suits, and it really spoils the tone.

Would add that it seems a reasonable way for the unemployed people to get work experience to me. An event for the benefit of the general public, with any security budget being paid for by the public, it's not like they were serving champagne to the Rothschilds or something.

Chicken, they were treated the same as the paid staff though.

Reasonable?
Bussed in overnight with no sleep and than expected to work for x hours for no pay.

I think you could substitute 'no pay' for 'minimum wage' and it would still be just as outrageous. It's not ok to make people stay up all night and then work all day whatever the terms. As soon as the company mentioned bussing people overnight to work all day they should have been binned IMO.

Did they have a choice whether or not to participate?

If you are going to bus your workers hundreds of miles to work a 14 hour shift, the least you could do is get them a bed in a hostel! Anything less is inhumane.

If they had been paid a decent salary, the people may have chosen their own accommodation and a decent night's sleep.

They were only told as they got on the coach that they wouldn't be paid. The going rate for this work is usually £10/hour.

And the "paid" staff were actually there as apprentices, paid less than £3 an hour.

PandaWatch

Did they have a choice whether or not to participate?

Of course they did. Nobody's forcing them to take unemployment benefit.

Honestly, this seems like such a load of manufactured outrage. If it was a Labour government running it, how many of these 'appalled' people would be making any noise at all? Very few, I suspect, but it's "EVUL TORAYS" so it's somehow different.

It just seems like a left-wing version of a sensationalist story of the sort the Daily Mail would publish.

Is the guardian turning into the daily mail of the left?!

Flatpackhamster. Well I'm pretty certain that they claim JSA because they NEED it! Not just for fun, they need it to live, OBVIOUSLY! So no they did not have a choice whether to do this or not and then they were treated incredibly badly. If labour had come up with this stupid work fare idea it would still be exploitive and wrong.

My question was more if they didn't do this particular work would they have been penalised in respect of their benefits?

Yes they had a choice Panda, no official source has suggested benefits would have been stopped.

I've work as a steward with trained guards and they were provided coaches to sleep in, two 'sharing' a bunk - One sleeping while the other did a shift. There was also space to watch DVDs on the top deck, a tent where hot meals were served and they could chat usup-- to each other.

Quite, quite different to this scenario. And these guards were travelling fro
Scotland to major music festivals so not local to the area. That's an example of people bring properly treated - and thus not being overtired, pissed off hungry or cd were able to do a good job.