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.

It does make sense for teh government to pay companies to do the training because government does not have teh expertise, it is not at the coalface in all these different industries and doesn't understand the exact training and skills that are required. It really comes down to how this training is managed and how much they pay the companies as to whether employees can be paid something for their work.

I don't see why the supervisor should make money for doing nothing themselves! If you use someone's labour to make money they should be paid for it. There's a big difference between that labour being voluntarily supplied and people being threatened with having their only source of income taken away from them.

I believe employers provide training because it benefits the company. Most employees benefit the company otherwise they wouldn't employ them.

It's not just about exploitation, it's about the public being put at risk. It's nonsensical to bus people in from Bristol to steward crowds in London. Public safety should be paramount - that's the whole point of stewarding. It's pointless and actively dangerous to employ someone who doesn't know Birdcage Walk from Blackheath. No more than I'd be any use stewarding crowds in Manchester. The stewards will have no idea in which direction to send people, which will be particularly dangerous if they need to disperse large crowds.

Doesn't give me much confidence in crowd control and safety for the Olympics, tbh.

Then you get into the whole companies ripping the taxpayer off by charging £££££££ for forced labour they are getting for free...

threeleftfeet the experiences over the two days I attended were equally rubbish in terms of organisation but definitely nastier when Showsec was involved.

The people from Close Protection on the Saturday, which was boat pageant day, were mostly clueless, misinformed and panicky. Not great but not intentionally nasty.

Showsec were horribly aggressive. There was a real edge when there were encounters between them and the bewildered hordes who just wanted to have a nice time and see the Queen.

This has renewed my resolution to complain to them and the idiots who awarded them the contract. It was slipping a bit

Must read the rest of the comments. The thread has moved on and certain people are as interesting as ever.

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

I would say yes, they should be responsible for training and paying wages if they want a skilled workforce. Would you rather a company had many unfilled vacancies or they had unskilled, unemployed and unremunerated persons doing those jobs? Why should training and education costs be borne by the tax payer (socialised) whilst the profit & extra productivity of having a highly skilled workforce that benefits companies be privatised, many of whom avoid paying taxes.

Clegg was out the other week wittering on about social mobility again. He is suggesting the universities take students from poor backgrounds with lower grades. What he should be doing is campaigning to change the raft of nonsense qualifications and over professionalisation of certain low skilled work. He should be looking at ways to compel businesses to employ and train the workers they profess to need in specific roles. That would be a far better way of tackling social mobility and unemployment.

'What he should be doing is campaigning to change the raft of nonsense qualifications and over professionalisation of certain low skilled work.'

Agree, Mini, good points. Remove these barriers to entry and train people on the job.

Thing is the NVQs have come about in response to low waged workers not having a clear career path and not being able to advance. However that has happened against a backdrop of rising inflation and stagnating wages. One can not feed a family on mickey mouse certificates.

So doctors, lawyers, vets all have to pay their way through years of university and get left with a big fat debt before they canbet a paying job, but low skilled workers who could do their training in a couple of months like security guards should have that funded by companies who don't even need to employ them full time so that they can then go and get a job elsewhere if they want to.

Okay then.

Doctors, lawyers and vets usually end up in well-paid jobs. I think the government should pay for the training of the unemployed in order to get them off benefits and back into work. In effect, I think the government is paying for the companies to train these unemployed people, because they wouldn't be taken on without these types of contract.

FGS Outraged we are talking about minimum wage jobs here. You are never going to even be remotely well off working in 'security.' I remember when I was a football steward being trained in First Aid and er that was about it.
It's ludicrous to compare it with being a doctor or lawyer or vet. It is not a skilled job. it just isn't. And of course the company should bear the cost of the training as many companies do when they recruit staff. I had eight weeks paid training for my call centre job.

It does make sense for teh government to pay companies to do the training because government does not have teh expertise, it is not at the coalface in all these different industries and doesn't understand the exact training and skills that are required.

claig I fundamentally disagree.

The companies benefiting from this Govt's various get-rich-quick-schemes are spivs and are not contributing to Britain's long term growth. Rather, they are detracting from it.

I suspect we come from different ends of the political spectrum. But I would never disrespect someone for legitimate political, social and economic views even if I disagreed with them.

I hope you understand that.

Also I support and champion the right of private enterprise to train recruits for their industry.

I went through that process and it worked for my industry - journalism - and is the best model for many others.

But it's not ideal for every circumstance and IMO govt must control employment legislation to ensure that people aren't exploited and the economy and society can grow.

That's why we need a strong private sector. It's not that I think profit isn't everything. I think that profit is hidden in a healthy, well-educated and cohesive population who aren't forever fighting for scraps from the rich man's table.

I think we had it about right. Things may have changed but though I'm not an economist, you don't make people confident about their future, and therefore potential growth, by threatening already perilous job security.

That way you just enrich spivs and trash the country. That's what's happening.

But why should the spivs in govt and those closely connected to them care about what happens to the country? They can fuck off and leave the rest of us to it.

I completely agree that companies should train their employees, but we aren't talking about employees here, we are talking about people on JSA who are doing a free qualification and getting work experience that they need to be employable.

Don't you see the difference? Why should the company pay them or pay to train when they aren't yet qualified and they don't have any permanent posts to offer afterwards.

I too think the government should pay for training, but that includes professionals as well as unskilled workers

outraged if there is a job, people should be paid to do it.

Pay them the going rate so if they aren't trained, but have potential, you give it to them at a fair rate, and train them up.

That's what happened to me at 18.

What is the point to the business of recruiting useless bodies to fill a role? To my mind that would annoy your customers and damage your business. But maybe I'm naive.

Or maybe I don't own a company such as A4E, Maximus, Parent Gym or one of myriad other existing companies such as Tesco, Greggs, WHSmith, Argos etc that have seen an opportunity to get free labour at a massive cost to the taxpayer in terms of Jobseekers Allowance.

Government should not be in the business of paying for direct training unless it's for a Govt job such as school or university entrants to the civil service.

There is also nothing wrong with govts setting up Enterprise Zones to encourage inward investment as long as they ensure that employment law is adhered to.

Can't you see that anything else is a waste of public money and is scooped up by spivs that want to piggy-back on public finances and give little or nothing back?

limitedperiodonly, I don't think that the companies are spivs.
Companies are getting bad publicity and a bad rap for the workfare programme, which was created by the government and not the companies.

When the controversy over workfare kicked off a few months ago, several companies puled out of teh scheme, after initially agreeing to it, because they feared that tehy were getting an undeserved reputation of exploiting workers. They were participating in a government scheme and much of the bad publicity was laid at their door. They don't need that type of bad publicity, they have a corporate image to protect. They are not desperate to take on people to train, they can find employees by advertising at the Job Centre.

I don't fully undestand how the scheme works, but it seems that the government wants to encourage employers to take people on from this scheme, in the hope that tehy will receive some training and work experience and possibly transfer to full time afterwards.

The government needs to help get people trained so that they can get jobs, and it does make sense to encourage employers to do real on the job training, rather than classroom based courses.

I don't know what the current state of the scheme is. Ideally, I think there should be no talk of losing benefits if someone drops out and also people who volunteer to go on these schemes should receive extra money above their benefits for doing so. Maybe the finances are so tight that they cannot be paid full minimum wage throughout. Maybe they could be paid a supplement for a number of weeks, after which that supplement should be increased for the remainder of the contract. If it goes on longer than 3 months, then I think they should get minimum wage.

Training in a real firm has got to be a good thing, but it shouldn't be done on the cheap, because that might harm the reputation of the whole scheme.

I don't think the governemnt should pay the whole cost, since employers are benefitting from the labour. Maybe a 50-50 split for a short period would be good.

'Government should not be in the business of paying for direct training unless it's for a Govt job such as school or university entrants to the civil service.'

I think govt has got to help people out of unemployment and that means subsidising their initial training in real companies. Government can't just sit back and wait for the market to operate, because in a downturn like now, the market is not hiring. So some incentives for companies are probably necessary. It is cheaper than leaving people without training on the dole for long periods.

Maybe some of these philanthropists we heard a lot about recently could get involved in paying supplements to trainees and bonuses if they finish their training courses.

Outraged - because the company is making a profit.

It's not training people on JSA as some kind of charitable act, a favour to the government, it is training these people because it has bid on a contract and now needs to train new recruits. That is a cost for the company and should be bourne by them. Training should be paid.

The issue is that the workers were on benefits and would lose them if the company paid them, but due to the nature of security work I should imagine it would be difficult to have them on the payroll until the Olympics. This sort of work is casual and seasonal, usually done by students and part time workers.

It is wrong to expect people to do a job in return for no pay even if they are receiving some ridiculous training. People should be able to work part time and not lose their benefits - they should be able to delcare the work they have done - like a stint of security work during the Olympics - and be able to return to JObseekers (or whatever its called now) when that seasonal work is over, with no fuss, no fear of waiting six weeks for the money to come through again.

Another issue is that this 'training' would be great if it led to a specific set of skills which would equip someone to work in a job where there is some prospect of career advancement and security. Stewarding work isn't it. Yes you will get a certificate after your stint of unpaid training but it means jack shit if the company can then pick up and set of 'trainees' for free and let them steward at events.

Jobseekers are lectured all the time about being grateful for any crumb thrown at them - but this takes the biscuit. It is bullshit to expect people to be grateful for working for free miles from home with the prospect of a job dangled in front of them like a donkey's carrot. Work for free and be fucking grateful for it..sheesh

claig You and I are in a looking glass world.

I believe the companies who joined this scheme did so because they thought it would be a benefit to them.

They withdrew from it because they were getting a reputation for exploiting workers. Entirely justified IMO.

Unless you think private companies using people who are being paid by the State and providing negligible or worthless 'experience' is a benefit to anyone but the companies involved.

That's not to mention the companies such as A4E (currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Squad), Maximus, Avanta etc that rushed in to exploit the situation like flies round shit.

It was a good deal for the govt because it meant they could fiddle unemployment figures or ideally remove people from the register for failing to comply for spurious reasons.

Do you think this is a good use of taxpayers' money? I don't.

I support proper training. It's what I got. It's what proper employers would like to provide if they weren't hobbled not by so-called 'red tape' but by the Chancellor's choke on growth for vanishing electoral gain.

I'm not a fan of A4E. I haven't heard of the other companies.

I think that working in a team for some of the companies on the scheme can be a good reintroduction for those who have been longterm unemployed. I don't think it is worthless. But I do think people should receive a premium above their benefits for the temporary contract.

I'm glad you're not a fan of A4e because they are currently under investigation on multiple charges of alleged fraud.

As are some of the other companies formed to take advantage if the Department of Work and Pensions's Work Programme, or Workfare, as it is commonly called.

Look them up.

As I keep saying, if there is a job going it should be awarded to the best candidate whether it's full time, part time or seasonal.

Proper companies do that and always have done. Companies that take advantage of Workfare are parasites on the system.

Training is a red herring. There are plenty of redundant people, who don't need training, poised to walk into jobs.

The fact is that there aren't many jobs. Why can't you understand that? Is it because you don't want to accept that unemployment and a plunge into a pool of similarly skilled people could happen to you any Friday?

What do you do that makes you so unique and employable btw?

Oh, I forgot to say. Long term unemployed is signing on beyond 26 weeks.

Do you think you could manage that full-time if your job ended in two days' time?

If so, you have my congratulations.

Remind me, what do you do for a living?

'The fact is that there aren't many jobs. Why can't you understand that? Is it because you don't want to accept that unemployment and a plunge into a pool of similarly skilled people could happen to you any Friday?'

I know there are not many jobs. I never said there were lots of jobs. That is why I think the govt has to create demand and has to do all that it can to train people and help them get work. I think training in companies in a real environment is better than classroom training on NVQs etc. But people should earn a premium over their benefits for taking part.

"Companies are getting a bad rap for the workfare programmes when it was formed by the Government and not the companies"
Sorry but that is the biggest cop out ive ever heard. No one is holding a gun to a company directors head saying "You must take part in workfare"

carer, some of these companies feel they are doing a service, helping to train people, helping the government achieve its goals of getting people back into employment. Some companies do donate to charities and do put back into the community. They are not all spivs. They are run by ordinary people and a lot of them want to do good. They don't want to be tarred with the brush of being exploiters.

I can accept paying people an apprenticeship rate because they are in training, unqualified, require supervision & assessment & are on a sure promise of later employment.

I think we need to know:

How were these workers supervised to ensure they were effective, given the public had no way of knowing that they were unqualified, unpaid trainees & not 'real' stewards?

How were they assessed? On what basis did anyone pass/fail the qualification they were supposedly working for?

Assuming they completed the WE satisfactorily, they're definitely getting job offers over the Olympics - can CPUK confirm that?

It's all bollocks. Cheap labour, pure & simple. The MD of CPUK has already dissolved six companies - what's the likelihood, really, of her giving these poor buggers any future employment?