to be pleased that one of my employers has taken on a "workfare" person ...

[TalkinPeace2]

And please read before flaming me.

We are a very small non profit organisation.
We've taken on a trainee who stays on benefits for those weeks and works for us 30 hours a week.
She brings our workforce up to 5 FTE.
we are paying for her to get sector specific training from week 1
our sector has a HUGE staff turnover due to poor candidate calibre in the past.
we genuinely hope that she will leave us for a job in our sector (£18K pro rata) within the 14 weeks

and if this works, we'll keep a steady stream of people coming off benefits.

The girl we've got is a graduate, but her degree has been useless for getting a job.
No way can we afford to pay her until she's qualified.
workfare may make our lives easier
and her life much much better

maybe Workfare should be banned to companies with over 100 employees .....

What would you do if you couldn't get someone on workfare? This is a genuine query, not sarcasm. That's really the crux of it to me.

we would/could not hire.
therefore we would not open up the opportunity.

the first six that the job centre booked never turned up

I don't have a problem with workfare so I'm not going to flame you.

The "non-profit" bit is leaping out at me...

YANBU. Sounds like a win win situation to me.

That is what Workfare should be, and sadly in the vast majority of places isn't.

Callisto

aha
see I DO have a problem with Tesco etc using workfare and it has been a mega soul search going into it ourselves.
we are getting an employee working for 30 hours a week - but YOU are paying for her ...
I will feel less guilty once we've turned her into a happy taxpayer.

Interestingly she is a DAMNING indictment of the Bliar "50% at uni " goal.
She started a degree that she realised was wrong but was not able to bail out due to problems at the college.
We are finally giving her fulfillment - but she REALLY should have started work at 18 ....

the Future Jobs Fund was better.

The "employee" got training in a company for 6 months. they received the minimum wage, which the government paid a substantial contribution to and in many instances the trainee got a permanent job at the end of it.

worst case, they had six months paid experience that was better for their CVs and small charities/not-for-profits got staff they couldn't normally afford to have to support and train.

ah... but the tories think it's better not to pay people at all...

yup, know which one i prefer.

A friend of mine has a small business, i volunteer for him to "keep my hand in" what is a very specialised field. He has a technician that he has just had to lay off as there are no funds to pay him (my friend currently doesn't take a wage) and the tech stays working for him as a volunteer for his job seekers allowance. Hopefully there will be money to pay this guy again in september - its better for all parties.

Saying that, the thought of people being forced to work menial jobs for their benefits, allowing high profit companies to exploit people leaves a very sour taste in my mouth.

I certainly wouldnt flame you for endording your company's position though OP

I'd rather any person on benefits is actually doing some work experience, whether that is at Tescos or a tiny local office is moot in my opinion. But then I would rather work at Tesco than be on benefits. I realise I am in the minority on MN to think this though.

And I'm not sure that 'fulfillment' is a criteria for taking a job if you don't already have one.

Does your sector have a lot of unfilled vacancies or the ability to expand as skilled people enter it?

Because otherwise you may not be reducing the number of people on benefits - you may be simply pushing someone else onto benefits somewhere else (in exactly the same way that increasing the number of graduates has simply increased the number of graduate unemployed). Although it's possible that you're doing something desirable in changing the composition of the sector.

But Callisto, would you rather work at tesco for a wage that is insulting and that the employer isn't paying, rather the tax payer who quite frankly pays enough money to the market hogger as it is?

I think Tesco pays at least minimum wage. No, I would probably rather get a job at Sainsbos or Waitrose or the local farm shop as I loathe Tesco and don't shop there. If it was the only job though...

Callisto
have you worked shelf stacking at night in a supermarket?
if not then you may not see why people are SO angry about it.

Mystery
I would MUCH rather we could take them on as employees
BUT
employment law is now so strong for employees that if we took on a trainee and they were shite we would have a very tricky time dropping them and getting another one
and if an employee we did not like walked away, they would not get benefits for six months.
At least this way we get to honourably separate

Calisto i was on workfare under New Deal in 2000. After completing a 13 week placement (4 weeks at a charity shop and 8 at my local council) Reed/Pelcombe wanted me to do ANOTHER 13 weeks at Campbells soup factory for my JSA. I scoured the local paper and found a job at a local sex chatline office. I went for an interview and got offered the job so i took it.

Workfarers don't get minimum wage, Callisto. That's the point.

serial
we have a shocking level of open vacancies.
all for jobs paying good hourly rates on flexible hours.

If all MNers outside London looked at becoming Parish Council Clerks or RFO's the public sector would work better and a lot of mums would get job satisfaction ...
these are up to £600,000 businesses after all

talkinpeace

I'm sorry, but the idea that firing someone is difficult is complete bullshit.

Employees have virtually no rights in the first year of employment and it's not hard to have probaiton periods, is it?

Even if you are a small charity you can buy a very cheap legal telephone HR service to support you each month.

And Cameron and his Government want to make the no rights in employment thing TWO years. I agree with MysteryCat getting rid of employees in this country is too fucking easy.

talkinpeace

what on earth are you on about mums outside of London not looking at Parish Clerk or public sector positions?

public sector/local government is where most people DO work in rural areas, after SMEs.

...but again, there's thousands and thousands of them now all on the dole because their jobs were cut by this government, who are no providing people to you for free.

Your workface person is doing 30hrs a week and getting paid jobseekers, so, £65? Just over £2/hr.

Mystery's right. That's what probation periods are for - so that either side can walk away with, say, one week's notice if it doesn't work out. Problem for the applicant is that the benefits agency may then get difficult with them - the government should ensure that if someone takes a job but the employer feels they are not right for the role, as long as the applicant has made a real attempt, then they should be able to go back onto JSA without any penalty.

There is also the safety aspect to stacking shelves at night for your JSA . Many areas dont have buses running at night and you certainly cant afford a taxi on JSA. many people on these "placements" are stuck walking home in the dark alone.

mystery
you misunderstand me.
the 'technical' sacking rights - as trumpeted by DC are bilge once it gets to tribunal - and small businesses DO NOT have the reserves to do that.

And I know for a fact that there are no cuts in parish councils (they are not capped) - there are hundreds and hundreds of vacancies
and it would make me the happiest bunny on earth if MN posters took those posts - they could ONLY be better than some of the timeservers in those 8000 posts.

every council HAS to have a clerk - current vacancies are over 950
not full time, but a lot better than a kick in the teeth.