Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think this is akin to slave labour.

406 replies

northernsoul78 · 29/11/2015 18:35

A friend on JSA is expected to do 30 hours mandatory (voluntary) work in a charity shop for 30 hours per week and apply for at least 10 jobs per week. It wouldn't be so bad if the voluntary work wouldbe likely to lead to a job but ofcourse it won't.
Aibu

OP posts:
Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 18:34

I think he enjoys working there. He has been doing it off his own back before he had to join this work placement scheme.

OP posts:
temporaryusername · 30/11/2015 19:14

Oldsu, I admit I don't know so am asking...why would you say someone would be doing workfare for 26 k? If that is the cap, it isn't for an average single person surely? That must be the cap for someone claiming multiple benefits that wouldn't apply to a jsa claimant in good health with no dependants..? Also, there must be many people including young people like those mentioned on this thread who get jsa but nothing else as they live with family.

Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 19:27

26k would be an exception rather than a rule.

OP posts:
sharoncarol43 · 30/11/2015 19:29

How can working 30 hours be slave labour? teachers and doctors I know are working three times that number of hours a week. 30 hours is hardly a heavy time commitment. That is only 6 hours a day!

HelenaDove · 30/11/2015 19:35

Are the teachers and doctors doing it for £73 a week Sharon?

FuzzyWizard · 30/11/2015 19:48

I'm a teacher... I work bloody long hours. I chose the job, accept the hours and really cannot complain about pay (at 29 I'm much better paid than most people I know of my age). Comparing that to 30 hours of work that has been forced on someone, in an area which they may have no interest or aptitude and for which they are not paid (at least not by the people they are working for) seems a bit unfair.

temporaryusername · 30/11/2015 20:07

Thanks northern, I thought so.

sharoncarol43 · 30/11/2015 20:08

Are the teachers and doctors doing it for £73 a week Sharon?

Many are doing it for well below the minimum wage per hour, and as students, working towards getting qualified, would have PAID for the privilege of work experience.

Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 20:10

It is heavy though if you are also expected to apply for 10 jobs a week and you don't have internet access at home. Plus you are doing it for 73 per week. I am sure doctors and teachers receive more than £2.40 per hour.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 30/11/2015 20:19

sharon its like comparing apples with oranges. They have chosen a career ( and i agree they should be paid more than they are but so should care workers in care homes and you havent mentioned them) unlike workfarers who have been coerced.

sharoncarol43 · 30/11/2015 20:22

I am sure doctors and teachers receive more than £2.40 per hour.

not for their initial work experience, they PAY thousands for that. And often have to arrange it for themselves.

from my point of view, your friend is incredibly privileged.

He has work experience laid on for him, he is paid to attend, and he only has to do what amounts to part time hours.

No, I do not consider it slave labour! Why would anyone say that!?

sharoncarol43 · 30/11/2015 20:23

They have chosen a career - actually no, many unemployed graduates are forced into teaching

Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 20:36

I suspect though that the salary for doctors snd teachers is far more that a charity shop or other retail manager could receive so the comparison is pointless.

OP posts:
AnthonyBlanche · 30/11/2015 20:40

I've just been catching up on this thread after being out at work all day. I am amazed at the attitudes on here. The poster who didn't want to take a job that was beneath her because she trained to be a professional. The posters who think money for doing nothing on a long term basis is the way to go. The poster who thinks people shouldn't relocate to find work. The posters who think 30 hours a week is full time. I am Shock at all of it and understand now why the benefits bill is out of control.

dimots · 30/11/2015 20:40

Professionals who assume that if they get made redundant they could take a cleaning or supermarket job to get by are deluded.

These jobs are now highly sought after in many areas and managers prefer not to hire people too highly qualified for these roles. You would be competing with many people with retail/catering/cleaning experience & they would get preference. The same goes for routine office roles.

Maybe it's different in London, but in many parts of the country this is the case.

Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 20:40

Everyone seems to miss the point that in addition to this 30b hour per week part time! Job! Paying £2.40 per hour he also has to prove he is applying for 10 jobs with no computer or internet access. Or risk being sanctioned. I am not sure many people would bite off his hand for this fantastic opportunity. I bet he was thrilled when the factory he worked in closed down.

OP posts:
Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 20:43

When I worked full time it was only 35 hours per week so its only 1 hour per day less. Add on say 2 hours per day job searching and applying than he is full time.

OP posts:
dimots · 30/11/2015 20:47

Oh and a single person without disabilities won't get anywhere near the 26k benefits cap. He will probably get closer to 7k per annum

AnthonyBlanche · 30/11/2015 20:47

northern I suspect our ideas of full time are different. Ten hour days are about average for my profession, so 30 hours a week doesn't seem like much to me.

Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 20:48

I think that person couldn't take a job in McDonald's (which wouldn't even cover their mortgage) when they were about to be offered a very well paid job. Makes sense to me.
Plus my dh was out of work for a while and wanted a lower level job he really struggled as everyone felt he was over qualified. He never claimed benefits btw.

OP posts:
temporaryusername · 30/11/2015 20:58

Interesting Anthony. Reading your posts I am beginning to understand a little about why prejudice is so widespread.

Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 21:01

Agree it is averge I professional vjobsvpaying 60 to 70k per yesr. My dh regularly put in 10 hour days but he was fsirly compensated for this. I did 35 hours as I was paid by the hour. This is the same for my friend yet his hourly rate is 1/4 of mine.

OP posts:
Original poster
northernsoul78 · 30/11/2015 21:05

Average professional jobs paying 60 to 70k or similar per year.

OP posts:
purplepolkadots · 30/11/2015 21:06

They will get very limited work experience serving in a charity shop. After a couple of weeks they will have learned what there is to learn there. This is not about work experience.
And do you really think that people would pay for the chance of the work experience of taking money at a till?
It is compulsory. It is essentially punitive. Forcing people who depend on the state for the absolute basics in life to work for a third of the statutory minimum wage is highly immoral in my view.
I'd like to see the 10 hours a day poster doing that work for so little, with the threat that if she misses a day, ever, or makes 9 job applications rather than 10, she will lose the money she depends on just to stay alive.

Lemonfizzypop · 30/11/2015 21:09

northern I suspect our ideas of full time are different. Ten hour days are about average for my profession, so 30 hours a week doesn't seem like much to me

Most full time roles in this country are defined as 35-40 hours a week, sorry if your poor time management skills mean you can't get your workload done in this time.