to think that very many PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON BENEFITS?

[ParsingFancy]

Because there seems to be some confusion about this.

I keep seeing bollocks like "people in work have to limit their children, so people on benefits should too."

Excuse me, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON CHILD BENEFIT.

And "working people can't afford adequate housing per child, so people on benefits shouldn't get either."

But PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON HOUSING BENEFIT.

Also, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON INCOME SUPPORT.

And PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE.

Oh and PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON WORKING TAX CREDITS.
That one was hard, wasn't it?

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/supermarket-staff-live-in-poverty-6291599.html

Pay Up has chosen to target one of the biggest employers in the UK?Big Four supermarket Sainsbury?s, with its 150,000 workers and 10,000 stores. Sainsbury?s is a poverty payer?thousands of staff are reliant on tax credits, an effective public subsidy to private profit, as the supermarket pays just £6.21 per hour.

Sainsbury?s major brand ploy has been simply that it?s not Tesco?even though Tesco in fact pays between 50p and 80p more per hour than Sainsbury?s. The supermarket has also claimed to be the biggest fair trade retailer in the world. It projects an image of family-friendliness, with Gok Wan and previously Jamie Oliver making its brand ?smart? and ?caring?.

But behind the façade, Sainsbury?s has been paying rampant bonuses to its executives?a 245 per cent rise for the board over seven years, including £2.2 million for CEO Justin King alone. Meanwhile staff have had a real-terms pay cut of 2.5 per cent over the same period.

Sainsbury?s can afford to pay a Living Wage. If it supports fair trade, why not fair pay?

www.redpepper.org.uk/poverty-pay-workfare/

Ivykaty's post is spot on and exactly what I put in the last thread before it sent me crazy and I had to hide it!

It's not the benefits system that's to blame, it's low wages, high living costs.

People should wise up to this and stop directing their anger and frustration to people who have the least in society and direct it to those who are to blame: politicians and greedy company directors.

"it was based on interviews with just 100 staff out of their combined total of 893,126 employees"

not exactly a scientific study, given they could get 100% accurate data by asking the companies.

again it isn't about whether the pay is low or not - supermarket basic pay is unarguably low - it is whether it is the sole income supporting a family.

Face the Difference. The impact of low pay in supermarket chains.

www.fairpaynetwork.org/uploadedPDF/Face-The-Difference.pdf

"a 245 per cent rise for the board over seven years, including £2.2 million for CEO Justin King alone. "

a fuckload better than Peter Davies, who paid himself bonuses through dividends whilst the company was failing.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/30/working-tax-credit-changes

Interesting read darkesteyes

When I was a student, I worked part time at sainsburys (late 1990s) on the checkout and as a price controller.
This was before the national minimum wage was introduced so they decided what my job was 'worth' and I used to get £8 + an hour with time and a half at weekends. People doing the same job now get LESS money for it!

Disgusting how these big companies are exploiting the system and the people who work for them.

are you prepared to pay more for your food darkesteyes ?

Waitrose is the one that pays best - but shopping there £20 doesn't go very far.

Supermarkets do not pay enough to support families. Thats why they are in receipt of working tax credits.
But since changes came in you have to work more hours to be in recipt of them.
I saw on the news recently that supermarkets are now putting security tags on their meat.
The same supermarkets that are creating desperation in the first place by either paying low wages or using workfare!
There are people on 18 hrs a week contracts at supermarkets who are having to use food banks. Its disgusting.

But since changes came in you have to work more hours to be in recipt of them

And you try getting more hrs when those hours are already being filled by workfare.

A lot of it's to do with the fact that the workforce doubled after the war and in the fifties because women joined it. Thus many jobs will be seen as supplementary not main income.

Workfare schemes are sold by the government as being a useful way to get people who have been unemployed for an extended period back into work by giving them experience to enhance their CVs and make them more attractive to potential employers. If they refuse to take part they can be threatened with sanctions to their benefit payments. There are many who are inclined to believe this is a good idea, getting the ever so frequently framed workshy to stop milking from the state and to make a use of themselves, but of course this is an oversimplification of the issue, regardless of where your politics lie.

For example, one of the people currently on the scheme where I work is over 50 years old who has never been out of work until quite recently, brought about by ever increasing rates of redundancy. His CV is full of work experience, experience which is of a much higher calibre than working at bottom rung of a retail operation, nevertheless he is working around 30 hours a week for no pay besides his current Job Seekers Allowance. The scheme is exploiting him, his only hope is that after giving away hours of labour for nothing that he will get a minimum wage salary at the end. There is in fact the possibility in this case of him getting a temporary contract, due to it being nearly Christmas, this isn?t however always the case and currently some of the store management quite literally do see him and others on the scheme as ?free labour? which is presumably why they are getting more than the average amount hours that paid employees carrying out the same job function get.

"
There are people on 18 hrs a week contracts at supermarkets who are having to use food banks. Its disgusting."

as i said before, there would be more if you put up the supermarket wage bill and forced a rise in the price of food.

my post above is cpd and psd from this link.

www.theunluckydip.com/Blog/?p=1047

www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1659

Yes people who are working do get benefits, because if they didn't they would be homeless or starving. Standard wages do not cover rent, council tax, food, and utility bills. And that is down to the bare minimum.

i think i opposed workfare when something when similar was proposed by the previous government....

at the time DH was unemployed but not on JSA so the inducement would have been only the £5 pw in NI stamps !

disingenous though, as Sainsburys are mentioned, they withdrew from the scheme in February.

there are alot of overheads in recruiting and training new people (just to fulfill the legal minimums in training/ kit) and i suspect the scheme is also very bad value for the companies involved.

Edgar the face the difference document which ive linked above does mention sainsburys in conjunction with low pay. It doesnt mention workfare.

I'd be interested to know if the workfare companies are fulfilling the legal minimums in training/kit.

There've certainly been stories about workfarers (in various schemes over the years) being told to buy their own tabards and not being given legal minumum breaks or work-specific H&S rights.

No one seems to know who's legally responsible for workfarers. They're not employees, so employment law doesn't cover them.

This week the ONS said that workfarers arent counted as unemployed.

i meant as that particular one was mentioned upthread.

News

Sport

Lifestyle

Community

Search site

Saturday 27 October 2012

Log inRegister

Find it
Jobs
Property
Motors
Announcements

You are here
News

Sponsored by
Youth Contract ?could lead to more deaths?

A copy picture of Derek Cain who was killed while working on a YTS scheme in 1982. This picture was published in a copy of the Safety and Fire News and shows how they found Derek, dead on the floor

Published on Friday 2 December 2011 09:40

A SHEFFIELD man whose 17-year-old son was killed on a government-backed training scheme nearly 30 years ago is warning that history could repeat itself.

Seventy-year-old Derek Cain?s son, also named Derek, died on a Youth Opportunities Programme placement at a Sheffield paper recycling plant.

Mr Cain went on to mount a campaign to raise awareness of the deaths of 85 young people on the YOPs scheme and the YTS scheme that followed it and took out a successful prosecution for negligence against the government.

Now, he fears placements recently announced as part of the £1 billion Youth Contract launched by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg ? who also happens to be his MP ? could result in deaths and injuries hitting today?s teens,

Mr Clegg has pledged to create hundreds of thousands of work placements for young people, in the face of record levels of youth unemployment, by offering wage subsidies worth £2,275 to employers who take on 18- to 24-year-olds.

Young people who fail to sign up to a Youth Contract will be considered for ?mandatory work activity?, while those who drop out of work experience or jobs without good reason will lose their benefits.

Mr Cain said: ?Back in the ?80s there were 85 deaths in 10 years. I?m really concerned ? I can see what happened in the ?80s happening again.

?They are offering money, like they did then when they offered young people £25 a week as wages and the employer got free labour.?

Mr Cain?s concerns have been heightened by the fact that his 16-year-old granddaughter, Katie, could end up on a Youth Contract scheme, and he fears she might face similar risks to those that killed his son. Mr Cain is also calling for a memorial to the 85 teenagers killed on work placements in the 1980s.

amusing also that they quote KPMG as a great employer - they are, but i don't imagine they have all that many low-paid staff. implementing 'living wage' won't have cost them very much. even a trainee accountant with them would start on £24K.