Unemployed used as unpaid staff at Jubilee event and expected to sleep outside

[HRHEightiesChick]

This story about unpaid workers doing the security at the flotilla event yesterday is bad. They were misled about not being paid, and had to sleep out in tents or actually outside 'under London bridge' was suggested to them. This is Workfare in action again, I believe.

This was taxpayer money and not New Labour, so I doubt it.

I did hear the interview- very weak mealy mouthed spokeswoman. As I say if they got a card and if it was simply a coach driver making a bad call, it's just one of those things.
But I'm not convinced that more bad calls won't be made over the next few months and that's worrying.

Not saying I agree with Thatcher or capitalism, but to bring out a justification that individuals should be motivated by more than personal gain, to defend a company exploiting those people for the profit of someone else along the line (and you can be sure of that!) is simply laughable!

Our whole system is based on profit and self-interest. Now if you've got a problem with that, let's talk! But the capitalist system isn't going to change to one based on morals by us encouraging companies to exploit individuals in this way, is it?

'Young people are often sent out to do work experience, because it helps them get a job'

Would you expect unemployed people to paint your rooms for nothing and call it work experience? If they are doing a job, they deserve to get paid, otherwise the monetary benefit of that work goes to the employer. It is not right.

I am not going to spend £1 on the accounts, because I probably wouldn't be able to make head nor tail out of them. I would like to know what the charity paid this company for its services and what those services were. Maybe we will find that out in the Daily Mail over the next few days.

' I believe most people with a moral compass share, whatever the circumstances, you do not park people under London Bridge. You just don't, profits or no profits'

The managing director apologised and said it was wrong and it was bad. Mistakes were made, the coach arrived too early and no director was on the coach and staff weren't there to meet the coach because it arrived earlier than expected.

'Close Protection told people to work this event for free to enable them to be eligible for the well paid Olympic work'
They would only be eligible for well paid work if they get this SIA certificate, as I understand it, and this experience counted towards gaining that certificate, as I understand it. The charity gave them the contract in order to help unemployed people find work, that is why they didn't staff it up with qualified people.

'There are plenty more historic occasions to come'
yes you are right and more mistakes may be made, but the managing director said that lessons will be learnt from these mistakes about teh coach arriving too early etc.

Do you think that this one firm that Lord Prescott has written a letter to Theresa May about, is teh only firm that was using workfare people on that day? I don't.

If they are painting my rooms so that a supervisor can see whether they would be suitable for paid work, then yes, I don't see why they shouldn't do it as free work experience.

I didn't get paid when I was going to college to do the training I need to get the paid job that I now have, I don't see why it should be any different just because real life experience is part of the training instead of being sat in a desk in a classroom.

The point is whether it will lead to a paid job or qualification. If it does, the I really can't see the problem. If it doesn't, then it's exploitation and that is obviously wrong. But it doesn't sound like it was exploitation in this case, it sounds like it was just badly managed work experience.

'I didn't get paid when I was going to college to do the training I need to get the paid job that I now have'

Yes, but the teachers weren't making a profit out of your training. They were probably paid by the state to give you those skills which would enable you to be more productive in the future.

I don't think it is right for comapnies to benefit from unpaid labour.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029437/Jacqui-Smith-defends-use-2-prisoners-paint-450k-home.html

'The point is whether it will lead to a paid job or qualification.'

No, the point is if someone is unduly benefitting from other people's unpaid labour, and also if they are in a privileged position to be able to benefit from that unpaid labour.

I don't see what difference that makes to the individual doing the training/work experience if the outcome is the same.

''The point is whether it will lead to a paid job or qualification.'

By the time they find out that their labour didn't lead to a job down the line, it is too late, they have already done the work and someone else has benefitted from it without paying a penny for it.

It makes a difference to society if companies can profit from free labour, rather than paying someone to do the same job. The number of real, paid jobs available to everyone will go down, not up.

MPs expenses are a different subject altogether, and one we would probably agree on.

Why shouldn't a company benefit from unpaid labour (which this wasn't, because they were offered pay, and training and work experience) if they have to pay themselves to provide that opportunity? Are companies supposed to provide training and work experience for free and swallow the cost of that too just because they are companies?

By the time they find out that their labour didn't lead to a job down the line, it's too late

Or, they find out it did lead to a job down the line and they appreciate being given an opportunity to get some experience so that when a job came up, they had a chance of getting it.

''Are companies supposed to provide training and work experience for free and swallow the cost of that too just because they are companies?''

Erm yes.

'I don't see what difference that makes to the individual doing the training/work experience if the outcome is the same.'

because they have been used to profit somone else, their labour has been unrecompensed. The intern has worked for 3 months for a politician who can claim for bath plugs, but paid the intern nothing.

Evan Davies says in the BBC interview that they were getting the SIA security card which allows them to work for 3 years in the industry. This is a lot more useful than an NVQ

From what I've seen there are different kinds of SIA licences. For example, if you want to work as a door supervisor you need a door supervisor's licence. From what I can make out (and I might be mistaken here) it's not a generic licence that works in all sectors of the security industry so it only enables them to work in temporary, seasonal stewarding roles.

Claig, I agree this is being exploited for political capital but that doesn't mean it's not an important insight into the many problems associated with Workfare. It's not fair and it doesn't work!

Given that this company is based in a very poor area with lots of unemployment why didn't they take local men and women. Train them for their SIA qualification and use them for the jubilee. They would then have a pool of staff to use for further events. All coming from the one area and therefore logistically easier to deal with. The directors could travel from the HO with the staff and this would ensure someone was there to make decisions. I can't understand why at the end of the day they weren't put back on a bus and taken home. Why take them to a field.

BlackOut - That's ridiculous! Companies have to make profits, thats how they work. If they can't make profits, then they won't get investment, and if they can't get investment then they will fold, which creates job losses and therefore more unemployed people.

Claig, you are confusing issues. I though this thread was about security workers at the jubilee, not interns and MPs expenses. I can't debate two separate issues at the same time, because I have different views on both of them.

'''Are companies supposed to provide training and work experience for free and swallow the cost of that too just because they are companies?'

Companies have always done that. They have to invest in people and training in order to grow, just like individuals have to invest in learning and college etc. if they want to grow.

What seems to be slightly different here, is that teh companies are carrying out training almost on behalf of teh government, paid for by government contracts and sometimes administered by charities. In that case, the govt is investing in the training to get people off benefits. But it should pay a fair rate to the companies, in order that they can pay the staff.

MammaBrussels, you are right that it is an important insight into what is happening. However, the bigwigs have known what is happening for a long time. It is only teh public that are not fully aware.

"If they are painting my rooms so that a supervisor can see whether they would be suitable for paid work, then yes, I don't see why they shouldn't do it as free work experience."

If they're working for free you shouldn't be expected to pay for the finished product!

"I didn't get paid when I was going to college to do the training I need to get the paid job that I now have, I don't see why it should be any different just because real life experience is part of the training instead of being sat in a desk in a classroom."

The trouble is they're gaining experience by working for the company, they are providing a service that the company is billing for. If they were gaining experience by observing what happened that would be different but they were expected to work.

''Are companies supposed to provide training and work experience for free and swallow the cost of that too just because they are companies?''

Every employer I have worked for has provided me with free training because they're the ones who benefit most from it. A company won't employ someone if they cost more to employ than they make the firm in revenue.

'I though this thread was about security workers at the jubilee, not interns and MPs expenses. I can't debate two separate issues at the same time, because I have different views on both of them.'

Yes but it is about unpaid labour, and I am highlighting the hypocrisy over this, when political parties themselves hire unpaid labour.

Using unpaid labour is unjust and undermines our whole social contract, it undermines equality and rights, because the privileged few, the politicians and the companies, can benefit from the labour of the many at no cost.

"Companies have to make profits, thats how they work. If they can't make profits, then they won't get investment, and if they can't get investment then they will fold."

Firms have to break even. Investment decisions are not determined by profit levels but by the overall value of the enterprise. If their expenditure exceeds their income over a long period of time they'll fold. Investment has nothing to do with it.

Mamma, surely I would pay whoever was doing the supervising? Its then up to them whether or not they want to use the person on work experience for paid work or not.if they did a good job, they benefit from future paid work. If they didn't, then they wasted their opportunity and the supervisors time, I don't see why they should be paid for being given an opportunity.

Of course employers provide training, but they generally provide that to emplyess who are going to benefit the company don't they? Not just anyone who may or may not end up getting the relevant qualification before they an be considered for employment?

That is why this training is different. This training is almost being carried out for the government by the companies. Without the government contracts, most of these companies would not take on these employees.