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.

Maybe fans of Workfare can explain how it helps the economy grow?

Please don't bother talking about work experience. Many unemployed people had years of experience before being made redundant. It's work they want.

But the DWP like to focus on 'training' as if the only people unemployed were dim school leavers or students who did Mickey Mouse degrees.

When I left school I walked into a job with a firm that paid me and trained me excellently. It was a real job and real training. My employer wasn't doing me a favour. They had the benefit of my labour at a rate commensurate with my inexperience and I eventually took my valuable training to a better-paid job. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Workfare distorts the labour market and depresses wages. That's why unscrupulous employers like it so much.

I don't understand why so many taxpayers do though. We're still paying benefits to the unemployed and as they don't pay tax on their non-jobs there's no benefit to the Treasury.

They have no money to spend so the economy stays in the doldrums and more firms have to lay people off adding more poor sods to the pool available for stewarding duty and places on ludicrous training courses run by the likes of A4e that make millions out of govt contracts (that?s on our bill, again) for the owners of the company yet contribute nothing to the economy.

I suspect so many people like it because they desperately want to pretend the unemployed are different to them and the horror of long-term unemployment will never happen to them. Or maybe they just like kicking people when they?re down.

Incidentally, JSA of £65 a week ends if you've been unemployed for more than 26 weeks and have a partner or if you're single and have savings of more than £16,000. That amount of savings might sound good but it doesn't last very long.

Alternatively, those who are 'lucky' enough to land a job at the new depressed wage level qualify for various benefits which aren't generous but are also on our bill.

So the taxpayer is subsidising poor employers. Would anyone like to explain how that's a good deal for anyone but the employer?

I expect any government to take a long term view on the health of the economy rather than enriching their friends in the short term and wrecking Britain's recovery.

Surely if they had a choice they should be praised for trying to do something worthwhile. They are clearly trying to come of benefits which is a good thing.
It just seems wrong that they should be exploited for wanting to get back to work.
So if you unemployed and don't take unemployment benefit than how precisely are you suppossed to live. My sister worked long term for a company since leaving school. Certainly not workshy. A new company came is and shut the place down. Since than she has been in and out of work. Only claiming benefits for 1st 2 weeks and again once her redundency oney ran out. She is actively looking for work and is doing volunteer work in a charity shop.
Is she and other unemployed suppossed to live off thin air?

sorry don't know what happened to my 6
"26 weeks"

limitedperiod I disagree with your view point on unpaid work experience.

When my DH was 19 he did something similar to what I understand workfare to be where he worked for 6 months for a record label, who didn't pay him. In that time he effectively created an entry level position for himself and was offered a permanant job after 6 months. He moved through the ranks to now (12 years on) having a very senior position.

Whilst I was in my second year at university, when not in lectures, I worked for a big media company. I then worked bar jobs in the evening for money. I wasn't paid by the media company and worked incredibly hard for them. However, the experience I gained was invaluable (not least being able to include it on my CV) and I have no doubt that it enabled me to end up in the job I'm in today. Yes, ideally I would have been paid for my hard work but there wasn't the budget available so either I stuck with it and earnt my money elsewhere or I left and didn't end up with the career I now have.

Oh, and I left school during a recession.

If this story is true it is absolutely outrageous. Unpaid workers having to help with the celebration of a multi-multi millionaire on a gold-plated boat with dozens of properties living a life of splendour. You couldn't make it up.

You could make it up

Nancy - are you saying it is made up?

Why didn't you expect those companies to pay you or your DH for your work?

I'm not talking about riches beyond the dreams of avarice, just an acknowledgment that you are trading your labour for their experience and training. Any reputable employer would do it. The operative word is 'reputable'.

What kind of big company doesn't have any budget for wages for inexperienced staff? I've worked for big media companies all my working life. They can always find something in the kitty if they want.

They also know that media jobs are so attractive they can get away without paying by dangling the promise of work. You and your husband were lucky. I've seen countless people strung along for weeks with training amounting to doing the photocopying and picking up the editor's dry cleaning before being replaced.

That is a disgrace and they are exploiting people. That might be the reality but you don't have to be grateful for it.

Of course it is exploitation. Imagine if all of the unpaid workers were black and all those on the boat were white? Oh wait, half of that sentence is true.

It isn't about expectation limited. They simply didn't have the budget to. If we hadn't been working in those jobs the work we were doing would have been done by existing members of staff. There's not "always money in the kitty" to pay extra members of staff willy nilly!

I don't think we were particularly lucky (would be one hell of a coincidence if us lucky ones ended up getting married!). We were just willing to put the work in for a long term goal. I know a lot of people in the media and music business that started out the same way.

It's all very well being a voice for all of us idiots who have been taken advantage of by the big bad corporations but the reality is that if you had your way neither my DH nor I would have been given the opportunities we were. So I am grateful.

These big companies couldn't afford anything? I'm sorry, they lied.

Lying is becoming increasingly easier. I've also put in the hours. I've worked for rubbish rates of pay but never for nothing.

I accept there was no alternative for you. If I was starting out now I'd probably do the same.

But no one would ever make me feel grateful for working for them for no pay.

I don't think it's completely made up but The Guardian massively spun the story to make it sound Dickensian - loads of bollocks about being made to sleep under bridges and denied access to toilets etc

No-one should have to work for no money. If they want to volunteer, fine but to be forced is Dickensian. All the spin in the world doesn't change that.

And the BBC, Nancy?

All I've seen on the BBC is them reporting the Guardian's report.....

The media is the worst for this 'work experience' crap - the need to work for free for a number if years before you are allowed to buy the assistant producer's skinny latte for them is an absolute disgrace.

limited there isn't an endless supply of money!

The record label my DH worked for definitely wouldn't have done (small indy at the time he started working there). The company I worked for, each department had a budget. There was no money to pay for an extra member of staff.

It's so frustrating trying to explain this to people who have never been in the position we were in and are in now. Of course, in an ideal world there would be jobs for everyone doing whatever you wanted to and everyone would get paid a decent wage. But that's not the case. In the main, stopping businesses taking on unpaid work experience candidates won't create more paid jobs. It will limit opportunity (yes, I realise that that makes me sound like a workfare spokesperson but it's the least cringe-worthy way I can think of to get my point across without more rambling!).

And to clarify, I don't think that anyone should be forced to work on this basis but I think it's wholly short-sighted to prevent businesses from offering such positions to people who want to take them.

Krumbum

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.

No, that is a choice. The choice is - you opt in to the system whereby you take taxpayers' money, and you accept that the price of that money is having to get a bit wet, or you opt out.

It's not a nice choice but it is a choice.

Hammy02

Of course it is exploitation. Imagine if all of the unpaid workers were black and all those on the boat were white? Oh wait, half of that sentence is true.

Let's imagine that all of the unpaid workers only had one leg, too, and were forced to hop up and down long flights of stairs. And imagine if they had forks stuck in their faces by rich white people. Then we could really get that manufactured lather frothing.

Exploitation is what happens when you get a left-wing newspaper making up stuff to create a story. They're the ones exploiting the workfare system, not the employers.

The payment for stewarding was £1.5 MILLION. Paid by us out of public funds.

That's plenty to pay staff with.

The multimillionaire gold plated diamond covered majestic queen who all this was for could have made a small contribution.

Most staff were paid - we're talking about less than 30 people here

Has anyone else seen the Mail story about the stewards?

Jobless Jubilee Stewards Dismiss 'Exploitation', apparently.

Yup you should be prepared to eat shit and be grateful because you are poor and unemployed and it is all your fault unlike the taxpayers who all work hard and are subsidising your velour track suit, 15 kids and fat screen HD telly.

A day's pay for a day's work. There are no jobs. Treating people like this because they are out of work is shameful.

Flatpackhamster you saying its a choice to take taxpayers money is a HUGE insult to those who have been paying NI all their lives and now through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed. If its "taking taxpayers money" then why the fuck dont they do away with NI then.

limited period said "i suspect so many people like workfare because they desperately want to pretend that the unemployed are different to them and that it will never happen to them." BANG ON THE MONEY.
Its this same mentality that is shown towards rape victims ( victim blaming, she shouldnt have worn that short skirt or got drunk etc) because its always easier to blame the victim. That way you can bury your head in the sand and not have to face the fact that you could be at risk of some of these things happening to you.