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.

The guardian has an anti-coalition agenda. That can hardly be denied. Labour had planned workfare in the first place. If it was them that were doing it, can you honestly say that they'd be going after it so strongly?

The vast majority of Guardian readers are reliant on the state in some way or another. They hate the self-reliant, just like the Labour party do.

Libertarianism is the future in this country as it is in America. The media on both sides of the coin know this and are shit-scared of it, which is why we get "controversies" like this. In the future there will be no workfare, just work.

From your post at 00:34:36 today:

'The Guardian is hardly the most reputable of news sources when it comes to workfare'

I then asked you for examples of this - i.e., of the Guardian not being reputable in its reporting on Workfare - in my subsequent post - to support the statement.

Yep, agree with you on the agenda, as I said just now. All newspapers have an agenda - in this they're not unusual. But you said they're not reputable, which is different, and you still haven't substantiated that. Instead you prefer to generalise about Guardian readers. You ought to like them; they give more space to Ron Paul than any other newspaper I know of (which still admittedly isn't much).

The Guardian isn't reputable. Full stop. It's run by a small clique of wealthy lefties, and read mostly by bitter left-wink cranks. It has an extremely small circulation, getting ever smaller, and is kept in business due to being subsidised by Auto Trader. Somehow it is given prominence far beyond it's status by the BBC, and subsidised by the public sector through advertisements for jobs.

Why is it Prescott and not Miliband or New Labour's Shadow Employment Secretary? Why not someone from the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords?

How derogatory of you to assume that because someone has been unemployed long-term (the jobcentre's definition of which is 6 months), that they are automatically unemployable.

That is just bollocks erm, untrue. Most people that have been out of work for 6 months plus have very good reasons for having been out of work for that length of time.

And surely, Josephine, if someone was employed and paid a wage to do a job, then it stands to reason that they would no longer be unemployed? Why do you say these people on Workfare are unemployable for the purposes of doing the exact same job for a wage, when they are perfectly 'employable' to do that job for free?

If the job is there for someone to do, then they should be paid at least NMW to do so.

Again, evidence for it not being reputable? Circulation doesn't = reputability.

Off to bed now (but don't worry Josephine, I'll check in tomorrow) - don't forget the Prezza / Molly Prince debate on R4 tomorrow 8.10.

'Auto Trader'? Blimey. Is that environmentally friendly? Is that a market mechanism contributing to climate catastrophe?

claig basically because he's decided to make a thing of it. He's written to the Home Sec asking her to explain it all.

Yes. I think questions should be asked. It seems strange that a Lord rather than an MP is doing the asking. I know New Labour started the workfare programme, are they now against it or maybe not? Is there real New Labour opposition or just theatre?

Ooh, well done Josephine for falling for the old 'Labour caused this mess' bollocks. It is acknowledged, even by the Tory scum that this recession was caused by the profligate behaviour of the investment bankers. The double dip has been caused by Gideon being even more ignorant about economics than Elvis. Who at least has the grace to be dead.

Prisoners working for private companies is similar to Workfare, in that they get to pay nothing for labour and put people out of work. So there you go. If you're unemployed and want a job go and commit a crime that puts you in jail. The Tories will get you a job then.

Corporations are dictating too much of current legislation. We need to be cowed, even more than we need to be dumbed down. Capitalism is a race to the bottom. The lowest cost gets the job. It works only for the few.

We used to have something called 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work'. Whatever happened to that?. Oh...

Josephine, You are not only one of the most supremely irritating and arrogant posters I have encountered but you are beginning to sound ignorant and desperate too.

You seriously have a complete lack of understanding of the sutiation. You cannot force companies to give jobs to people they do not want to give jobs to!

No josephine it is you who lacks understanding. Whilst companies can not be forced to employ people they can be encouraged and a good place to start would be to prevent them profiting from unpaid labour

The people would still be unemployed and unemployable NO they wouldn't, many people are now losing their jobs, there are people who possibly have the skills necessary to have undertaken this work but instead companies no longer hire people, they wait for freebies from the DWP

Labour were better at it because they were in power during an economic boom, largely created through a housing bubble of their own creation. And they also were keen on throwing money around to create jobs that there was no need for other than to give people jobs

Creating real jobs (your opinion on whether those jobs are necessary is irrelevant) reduces unemployment, unemployment benefit incl HB and other out of work benefits and increases the tax to the treasury.

As a right wing tax payer you should be alarmed at the way your tax money is being used to subsidise the profits of companies and the dividends of shareholders.

I would guess from your lack of reason, you are not top of the tree, just supremely short sighted, so much so that you fail to realise that you are in no way immune and in no way so special that your skills won't be demoted and your job given to a tax payer funded freebie worker.

Capitalism is a race to the bottom. well said NicholasTeakozy. It's a race to the last man standing and at that point his wealth will be worth zero.

Josephine may I respectfully suggest that you watch this excellent - and beautifully shot - documentary for a bit of perspective.

Surviving Progress

If you do get a chance to watch it (and I highly recommend it!) I would be very interested to hear your take on it.

As an aside - this is also worth a watch

And anyone else with a bit of spare time, that Surviving Progress one really is good and it's on iPlayer so won't be around for long!

One of the richest families in the world, deploy slave labour to help with their celebrations. You couldn't make it up.

I agree with Josephine that there a lot of workshy scroungers among the long-term unemployed. Most of them are probably unemployable. Some of them (quite a few) post on these boards.

That said, the thought of any of them being given responsibility for public safety of any type is horrifying. The thought of them being given responsibility for public safety on the scale of the London Jubilee celebrations is the stuff of nightmares.

Actually, I don't believe it. I think the story is a lie.

threeleftrfeet, I have just started watching 'Surviving Progress'.
I have to disagree with you. It is the usual propaganda that we are fed by the elite, by the media, by the intelligentsia. It is all negative, doom and gloom, destruction of humanity, green, environmental, windfarms etc. Even the title is negative - 'surviving' progress, as if progress is a bad thing. Only progressives think that progress is bad. They want to prevent progress, the progress of the people, the progress of the population. They constantly spread the message of doom and gloom to the masses -catastrophic climate change caused by human ingenuity and the use of technology - and tell them that progress is not 'sustainable', that it will be difficult for humanity to 'survive' progress.

They say we will become extinct, we are destroying, we are polluting. They are lying.

Progress is the Promethean flame, it is the opening of Pandora's box, and it leads to the progress of the population, and the elite want to put us back in our box and control the population. That is why they dumb down TV and education and Jubilee coverage. They don't want us to progress.

Have you read that David Harvey book yet Claig? It seriously is worth reading.

I agree with you about the climate catastrophe but only in so much as I think that the "elite" seek to profit from new frontiers.

When you say progress of the population, what do you mean? Surely progress can be measured in several ways, population growth arises both from poverty and from prosperity! surely you don't think Grayling et al are going to starve us out progress could be measured in how well we care take natural resources and protect the environment. Wind farms are progress, wave power is progress, it has been developed in response to human need and solving a problem, so it can't not be progress.

bobbysmum07, the company involved have confirmed the substance of the story.

Why would it be a lie?

The guys you see in hi-vis jackets at these events - did you imagine they were well paid, well trained? It's a NMW job. I did it as a student with no training whatsoever. These days, I believe, you usually have to go on a couple of courses, but it's still minimum wage employment, often with lousy conditions.

Being dumped out of a coach at 3am & told to get your head down on concrete under London Bridge for a couple of hours, though, before doing a 14 hour shift & then being bussed to a sodden campsite - well, it's obviously a crap gig, but one for which you might conceivably expect to be paid, surely. Especially if that's what you'd been told would happen.

Why bus them in at all? Why not use locals?

Because, as is well known & exploited by dodgy companies like this, if your workforce are miles from home, they can't just walk off the job when they realise they've been lied to about the T&C.

'I agree with you about the climate catastrophe but only in so much as I think that the "elite" seek to profit from new frontiers.'

Mini, it's much worse than 'profit'. The real elite don't need to profit from anything. They are super rich, with more wealth than Croesus, more money than they know what to do with. They seek only control, control of the masses.

'When you say progress of the population, what do you mean?'
I mean they want to reduce our numbers, stop us multiplying, stop us going forth. Read the subtext of their messages amd you can't miss it.

'surely you don't think Grayling et al are going to starve us out'
Don't know who Grayling is. Do you mean the MP? If so, he is not part of the elite. He doesn't want that. But austerity comes from the elite and crops are planted for biofuels instead of food by the elite. George Monbiot, himself, has warned that this might lead to mass starvation.

'Wind farms are progress'
Wind farms are a con. They make rich landowners even richer with subsidies from taxpayers and they kill many birds who die caught by their blades.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html

All these media programmes like 'Surviving Porgress', with their subtrack of deep, meaningful music and their soundtrack of doom and gloom are done for a reason. Their intent is to turn you away from progress, to plant the GM seed that it is negative, and yet the deep, sonorous voices never mention GM crops - they say that they are 'sustainable'.

www.monbiot.com/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/

I don't think any of the posters on this board are unemployable. They are all fairly articulate, are interested in current affairs, and most are concerned about workers rights. How does any of that make them unemployable?

I for one am fully intending to get back into employment as soon as I get the 15 hours of free child care. No, I won't be able to walk straight back into a management level job after what will be a 5 year career break by the time I get to work, but I expect that I will have to start from the bottom up again. Besides, management hours wouldn't suit for the first two years I will be back at work for - I will have a pre-schooler. Once he is at school, I will have two years experience (again!) back under my belt, to enable me to look for better paid work.

I hardly think those are the aspirations of someone unemployable.

Josephine, it's always interesting to come accross someone who sticks to their guns as much as you. However, your arguments are quite weak because you make totally unsubstantiated statements which seem to be based on anecdotal evidence. I've picked out some statements I'd be interested for someone to explain:

This country is in a dreadful state thanks to Labour.

Please elaborate. Why, do you think, this is the case? What is this dreadful state and how did Labour cause it?

The guardian has an anti-coalition agenda

Can you name me a newspaper that has a pro-coalition agenda?

The vast majority of Guardian readers are reliant on the state in some way or another.

The only information I could find on Guardian readership is here. To summarise, they are highly educated, hard working, well-paid individuals.

I assume you mean that Guardian readers are public sector employees but I can't find any evidence to support this.

The Guardian isn't reputable. Full stop.

Using PCC complaints as a proxy (as it's impossible to measure a qualitative indicator like 'reliability'), the Guardian is the most reliable paper; the Daily Mail the least . 71.9% of PPC complaints against the Mail were on 'accuracy' grounds.

It's run by a small clique of wealthy lefties, and read mostly by bitter left-wink cranks.

Please see my above comment about the Guardian readership. I don't know anything about the individuals who administer the Sutton Trust, I would assume that they are left-wing though. I'd rather a small clique of wealthy individuals than the Murdochs any day. News International titles have about 35% market share - worrying.

It has an extremely small circulation, getting ever smaller.

The circulation of every newspaper is falling.

As I have said, do you have any better ideas?

Yes, I've given them to you. If you want more, I'll provide them baked up with data and theory.

Can you explain, without talking about unemployability, how Workfare will increase employment rates?

I'll repeat what I said in a previous post. There are 464,000 vacancies and 2.63 million unemployed. Workfare substitutes vacancies (job opportunities) with unpaid placements. If the government want to reduce unemployment they need to increase aggregate demand and increase economic growth to 2%. How does Workfare do this?

It would be an obvious choice to bus these employees in to the gig, as someone else has rightly pointed out, because if they were local they would just leg it once they realised they'd been had (not getting paid). I would have done the same!

All whilst the Royal Family were having a jolly good time of it.

Nice.

What a divide!