AIBU to think that doing workfare for the same co. that made him redundant should not be happening.

[Darkesteyes]

Saw this on twitter earlier. The company made him redundant but later wanted him back on workfare. Appalling.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/03/dwp-benefits-electrician-work-placement-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw#start-of-comments

roll on may 2015.

So you'd rather he just sat at home doing nothing rather than giving something back? He is being paid so what's wrong with expecting him to do something for the money? He doesn't have to, he could always find his own paid job. If he really is sending out his CV hundreds of times I suggest he either ask for feedback from agencies or get someone to look at it for him. Too many people feel they are owed a living without having to do anything

Youareallbonkers, did you mean to sound that smug and unpleasant?

If he's sending off 50 cvs a week, could you please explain (a) where you think all these jobs are and (b) why you think it's not occurred to him to find one?

I don't know where the mental health thing came from but I would think there is a massive amount of evidence that shows he requires up to date, current and relevant work experience - regardless of his age.

I think it was also The Telegraph that wrote an article, complete with graph, showing job offers vs length of time unemployed. After 6 months of unemployment the job offers dropped off very rapidly. The article polled numerous employers who all cited this as a reason.

So what's the answer? How does he get that relevant, up to date experience that is so important to employers?

The thing is companies need workers of some description to carry out work - They can either recruit employees to whom they have to pay the minimum wage or they can take workfare people who they don't have to pay (because, we the taxpayers, continue to pay their benefits) and I believe the company also gets an additional state payout for taking them on! Of course there aren't jobs out there for the unemployed when companies can opt to have a constant stream of free labour.

The unemployed lose out as it reduces the number of jobs available and they are expected to work full time for far below the minimum wage without full employment rights and with the stigma of being a benefits 'scrounger' if they try to speak up.

The taxpayer loses out because we are essentially subsidising private companies by paying for their workers.

Yourallbonkers I hope you recall your shameful post when you are 59 and forced to work for benefits.

Neither. The jobs must exist as he is applying for them otherwise where is he sending his CV? There are loads of jobs out there, I am recruiting for 2 right now. If he isn't getting any response to the applications then he should work out what is wrong with his cv

youareallbonkers if only you'd read what this is about. He was working there for wages. They said they didn't need him any more and then took him back for no wages.

Try and imagine (I know it's hard) that it's you. Your boss just sacked you because they don't need you any more.

Then you get a call telling you to report back there and do your old job, but that they won't be paying you wages. You have to claim benefits to live on.

f he isn't getting any response to the applications then he should work out what is wrong with his cv

What is wrong with it is that there will be 100s or even 1000s of other CVs to compete with. They only reply to a short list as it would be too much work to reply to all just to say no.

How can you live in the UK and not know what the situation is?

I would have no problem with doing that. Now or in the future. I would rather be out working and doing that shows potential employers you are keen to work and\or learn new skills rather than sitting around complaining.

He is probably sending out speculative CVs to anyone he can find - it's a DWP requirement. That doesn't mean that the recipients of his CV have any vacancies.

Exactly, there will be lots of other cvs so he needs to work out how to make his stand out. But why should he eh? It's much easier to just sit at home complaining

Backonlybriefly read the article properly

ok for a minute there I thought youareallbonkers was for real and just a bit ignorant of how things work these days. When someone (who clearly has a good job) says they will be happy to lose their wages and work at the same job for benefits only you know it's a wind-up

I read the article again btw and it still says the same.

The whole article is a load of nonsense IMO. He never had a job there to start with, and there isn't genuine work there for him to do now. It's all a charity thingy to provide employment opportunities for the long-term unemployed, I know nothing about that particular place do I can't say whether it's run on socialist or punitive lines. But it isn't a fair representation to say that were his former employers.

Having said that, I am not trying to defend Workfare. I think the scheme is disgusting.

youareall No matter your situation it's extraordinarily difficult to get a job at 59. This does smack of slave labour and up until recently we did live in a country in which we had choices with regard to our employment status. Now, I am aware that you are likely to bring up all sorts of bunkum about benefits scroungers sitting on their bums etc. But before you do that, do take a look at the facts and figures.

So you'd rather he just sat at home doing nothing rather than giving something back? He is being paid so what's wrong with expecting him to do something for the money?

The problem is that he won't be "giving something back". he's being given benefits to work for a charity. if they have need for his labour, THEY should pay him. The problem is that he won't be able to find real work if he is told to "give back" while not having a job. So, I wouldn't rather him sit at home. I would rather him find a proper job.

One issue in this country is the following.

McArthur said there were no jobs for someone his age in the Lanarkshire area.

we seem to want to support people in communities where there are no jobs. Electricians are needed in lots of places, most obviously London.

So now there isn't genuine work for him to do but this is an employment opportunity?

This thread illustrates beautifully just how warped our language around activity, work, employment, wages and pay have become.

What happened to the simple concept that, if there's work to be done, a company employs people to do the work, and pays them wages in return?

Its obviously too radical a concept for the 21st century Pausing.

So now there isn't genuine work for him to do but this is an employment opportunity?

Exactly You cant have it both ways. This is like a new kind of gaslighting.

There are many stories of people working for companies such as Poundland, Tesco and being laid off only to be sent back there to work for their JSA £57.35 for a 18-24 year old and £72.40 for 25 and over. With the suggestion of a permanent position at the end of their placement, which very rarely happens.

The companies taking advantage of this scheme are getting free labour and a payment from the Government. I do not see that they are passing on any reductions in the prices/charges to the public!

You're just being facetious now. There is no paid work for him there as they are a charity set up to help the unemployed by offering them work and training opportunities. They are not a company trying to make money. It's silly, and disrespectful to the concepts of charity and volunteering to try and pretend that they are exploiting him in some way. The whole point of the place is to try and help people like him.

We have several community charities round here that are run for and staffed by people who are either unemployed or homeless. They do fantastic work for their service users. There's nothing warped about it.

I don't think people should be forced to volunteer, but you cannot compare charities "using" free labour to the likes of Tesco getting people to stack their shelves for free.

YANBU. I would also hazard a guess that the directors of this 'social enterprise' are probably able to pay themselves significantly higher salaries as a result of using unpaid labour.

I do think that there is something in the idea that if you expect people to get up and get out of bed and do something it will discourage some people who are just lazy and shiftless for finding excuses to stay on the dole. But I don't think that this should be done in a way which allows others to profit from it. And even in the cases of charities there are still people higher up who will benefit from having free labour. I think that rather than work it should be purely educational training that people are expected to go on when unemployed. Something that will get them a qualification and make them more employable, something which is purely slave labour. That way you have the incentive of getting people out and doing things and making them more employable, but they're not being exploited.

Saucy what about the conflict of interests involved. If someone is doing workfare for a charity and doesnt come in one day because they are sick the charity can then report them to the Job Centre for a sanction. Yep thats right a CHARITY causing destitution and possible homelessness. The very things they are supposed to be against!

And with the amount of ill and disabled ppl being forced onto JSA and then workfare because of not meeting the criteria for ESA i should imagine this happens quite a lot.