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.

carernotasaint

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.

Stop attempting to dismiss the point I was making by claiming I was insulting people. I wasn't and it's a cheap trick to attempt to close the argument down by implying that any criticism of your view is offensive.

If its "taking taxpayers money" then why the fuck dont they do away with NI then.

Good question. NI doesn't pay for unemployment. All the taxes go in to one big pot and NI isn't kept separate. NI is a huge, ghastly Ponzi scheme. So why not do away with NI?

I'm making a very specific point here and one which you missed, with all your faux outrage. You're choosing to opt in to the government/taxpayer system. You do that, you have to accept that the consequence of getting that money is that, yes, you might have to do work you don't like or don't want to do.

You can choose to opt out and some people do make that choice for their own reasons. But pretending that there isn't a choice is nonsense. You don't have to take the taxpayer's shilling.

People who have paid NI ARE taxpayers FFS

It's not much if a choice if you will be starving and homeless. So yes it's this or homelessness. That's coercion. It's not about people getting a bit wet it's about slave labour. We have a minimum wage for a reason but poor people don't seem to get that right. On top of that if you choose to use slave labour then they should at least be treated in the same way that paid workers legally have to be. We should be helping people find real employment not giving huge wealthy businesses some free labour, why hire people as paid in employees if you can get it for free?

Krumbum

It's not much if a choice if you will be starving and homeless. So yes it's this or homelessness. That's coercion.

I said it was a choice, I didn't say it was a pleasant choice and I certainly didn't say it was one I would welcome or I liked. But to pretend there isn't a choice here is wrong.

It's not about people getting a bit wet it's about slave labour.

It wasn't slave labour. It wasn't even close to the definition of slave labour except in the hyperventilating world of the Guardianista.

Did you read the Mail article I linked to?

We should be helping people find real employment not giving huge wealthy businesses some free labour, why hire people as paid in employees if you can get it for free?

I think you should stop pretending that 'we' can 'help' people find real employment. It's up to people to find their own jobs, and governments always make a hash of it when they 'create' work.

carernotasaint
People who have paid NI ARE taxpayers FFS

That doesn't invalidate the point I was making.

Why would they be starving and homeless? !!

"the consequence of getting that money is that, yes, you might have to do work you don't like or don't want to do. "

Plenty of people do work they fon't want to do. I have just finished 40 hours of nightshift in a call centre over the bank holiday. But I least I get paid for it.

I don't see any faux outrage. I am genuinely shocked you think people who draw benefits should work for free.

governments always make a hash of it when they 'create' work

flatpack What, like moving govt departments to areas of high unemployment such as the DVLA in Swansea, various tax offices dotted around the country or encouraging inward investment such as concessions offered to foreign car manufacturers in the north-east?

This govt is making a hash of creating bogus training schemes. Well not a hash exactly. It is removing people from the unemployment, register, providing free labour at Taxpayers' expense to large companies and encouraging people to hate each other instead of laying blame for the failure to stimulate growth at the Govt's door.

And I'm sure the directors of govt funded enterprises such as A4e, Maximus, Reed, Avanta etc are laughing all the way the the bank while the Taxpayer pays for their woeful and possibly fraudulent schemes.

They'll soon be joined by Dave's school chum Octavius Black who's launched the brilliant wheeze Parent Gym to rake in govt contracts while teaching other people how to bring up their children.

When I say 'other people' I mean people you don't think are you until the day you ask for special needs education for your child or you lose your job and have to claim benefits and free school meals.

You and me both aboutlastnight.

My life has been blighted by the humiliation of having to turn up for a series of degrading jobs working for truly ghastly people because my feckless parents failed to work hard enough to set me up with a trust fund.

But at least those ghastly people paid me.

And we have already paid for our unemployment protection. We've paid for it, we dont need to work for free for arseholes!

Aboutlastnight

Plenty of people do work they fon't want to do. I have just finished 40 hours of nightshift in a call centre over the bank holiday. But I least I get paid for it.

These people got paid for it.

I don't see any faux outrage. I am genuinely shocked you think people who draw benefits should work for free.

They didn't work for free, as the Mail article clearly showed. They only worked 'for free' when they refused payment because it would adversely affect their benefit receipt.

That's what I mean by faux outrage. The story is pure lazy tabloid gutter press journalism.

The payment was not the going rate for the job, it was less than a third of what people normally get.

The payment offered was not the going rate for the job, it was less than a third of what people normally get.

Normally, people get paid about £10 per hour for this work.

Because if you lose your benefits they no longer pay for housing or JSA. So you have no money to buy food. How is it not slave labour? Being unpaid to work is exactly that , even if not directly forced the other option is not worth it, it's coercion as I said. And even if governments are bad at creating employment as you say then that is irrelevant. This is not the answer, it does not solve the problem.

Of course they turned down the money! It's just not worth losing benefits for this type of ad hoc casual work.

Morally is it acceptable to take people on JSA to work overnight and through the next day knowing they cannot be paid as they are claiming JSA? People who obviously want to work?

Again, why not just give them a job, put them on a contract and pay them? Hey presto, staff being paid and off JSA!

Are you going to tell me the company cannot afford it? If that is the case then they cannot afford that contract.

flatpack I'm feeling neglected. Can you answer my question about the 'hash' of previous govt work creation schemes, please?

FWIW I believe some of them were schemes of the Thatcher administration, just in case you're going to say I'm a whingeing Lefty with an axe to grind.

I am a whingeing Lefty. But one with a long memory and a compulsion to give credit where credit's due.

www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/firm-in-row-over-unpaid-stewards-for-jubilee-to-have-olympic-fire-safety-role-7821230.html

But Carer The independent has such an agenda!

ChickenLickn

The payment offered was not the going rate for the job, it was less than a third of what people normally get.

Normally, people get paid about £10 per hour for this work.

No wonder businesses can't afford to hire if people are forking out £10 an hour for unskilled labour. I know IT staff who get paid £10 an hour working in schools.

limitedperiodonly

flatpack I'm feeling neglected. Can you answer my question about the 'hash' of previous govt work creation schemes, please?

Why? What makes you think I'm defending any of them? Why do you think that I'm supporting one party and not another?

FWIW I believe some of them were schemes of the Thatcher administration, just in case you're going to say I'm a whingeing Lefty with an axe to grind.

You probably are, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Job creation schemes run by government never work out. What governments can do is things like cutting the costs for businesses to hire, train and keep on staff - perhaps scrapping Employers NI, or offering tax credits for training schemes which lead to formal qualifications.

flatpack How nice to see you. I'm not supporting any govt either.

However you claimed that govts always made a 'hash' of creating work and I gave three examples where you were clearly wrong.

It would be nice if you would acknowledge that otherwise I'll assume you were talking out of the back of your neck and didn't think anyone would notice.

that doesn't mean you're wrong

Thanks for pointing that out. Thankfully I've never doubted it. You were though.

Job creation schemes run by government never work out

I just pointed out that sometimes they do. Wrong again. Not doing terribly well so far are you?

What governments can do is things like cutting the costs for businesses to hire, train and keep on staff - perhaps scrapping Employers NI, or offering tax credits for training schemes which lead to formal qualifications.

Yes they can do that. What experience do you have in hiring, training and recruiting staff? As a senior journalist in small and large organisations I have quite a bit. My husband is a retailer and has his own tales to tell particularly in connection with running a medium-sized business. I'd be fascinated to hear your experiences. Do tell.

However, any leg-up for private enterprise needs to be done carefully to make sure that it doesn't benefit private individuals to the detriment of the country.

An example of where it went a bit wrong: Adrian Beecroft, aka head of payday loan sharks Wonga.com, chucks his toys out the pram when the govt says they wished he'd been more discreet

So someone who profits from people who can't borrow money from any other source advocates employment instability. Our future is safe in their hands, eh?

I don't believe people get paid £10/hour for this kind of work at all.

Trained chefs get less than that.

I know a woman who is being a London Ambassador. www.londonambassadors.org.uk/ Not being paid a penny.

I expect we'll get an article about that in six weeks or so.

And then follow up will point that she's doing it because she wants to.

I have no idea what the going rate is for this kind of work is, but bear in mind it's occaisional work. You do tend to get paid more per hour for temp contracts than you do for regular work.

To compare a shift at an event with chef work isn't a fair comparison as the chef has many, regular hours to work and the casual labourer simply doesn't.

There are plenty of casual chef jobs as well. Everywhere will use agency chefs from time to time.

it seems a reasonable way for the unemployed people to get work experience to me.

poulay whatever we think of Workfare, do you think it was a good idea to use the Jubilee, with the dangers of terrorism and crushing, as a training exercise?

Don't mean to single you out. You're not the only person to think it was a good idea to put it in the hands of a company that used unskilled people at taxpayers' expense instead of paying out of their own pocket for proper security staff with experience and qualifications.

I'm just curious as to why.

I have never been paid more for a temp contract than a permanent contract. Never.

And lots and lots of sectors use agency and bank staff - the difference is that these staff are paid for regular work, they know that they will get regular contracts