Workfare versus Work Experience

[rabbitstew]

How important is prior work experience, normally, to a job as a shelf stacker? I would have thought that anyone taking that on via Workfare who then failed to get or take the job at the end of it would be ringing the death knell to any future employment as they would be assumed to have been too slack to even get that sort of work when offered to them on a plate. And I know that unpaid work experience is more or less compulsory to anyone hoping to get into publishing, for example, but I'm sure that nobody would get to keep their benefits if they got themselves a bit of that sort of work experience.

So, basically, I'm a bit unclear as to whom Workfare is supposed to really benefit, apart from those people who wanted jobs in Tesco in the first place, but who now find they can't access them unless they are on a Workfare scheme?????

In my experience , tesco don't offer jobs at the end of workfare schemes

It does benefit people who are unemployed, not because they need special experience to be a shelf-stacker and not because they'll be guaranteed a job at the end, but because they need to show to a potential employer that they have been resourceful, taking up opportunities and being productive rather than doing nothing at all. Confidence gets smashed when unemployed for a long period, the days drag, people become isolated, demoralised and start to think they are useless. A lot give up entirely. A few weeks of having to be somewhere for a regular working day, mixing with other people, making an effort etc. can be a good thing psychologically. Not ideal but better than nothing.

But that's my point. If they don't get a job at the end of it, then it looks like they took up an offer sitting on a plate and made a hash of it, which won't look good to other employers, and then they really will start to think they aren't worth anything but sitting on their backsides, because they can't even get Tesco to employ them as a shelf stacker for more than a few weeks....

You might like to see this article about work experience. It's even less 'regulated' than workfare, with far less certain prioress at the end if it, and all too often one has to pay to get it (NUS view: "students paying for their own exploitation"). Auctioning placements (a la NSPCC) seems particularly dodgy.

But the principle of workfare was conceded under Labour in 2009 (about when that article came out). It's harder to turn the tide when something has been running with no outcry for a few years.

How many temporary jobs have you had Rabbitstew? And did you leave because you 'made a hash of it' or because the contract period had come to an end or some other factor, nothing to do with your competence? And that's my point. If someone is unemployed and has a CV that shows they did 8 weeks at Tesco, maybe followed up by 8 weeks somewhere else they can say, quite accurately, that the scheme came to an end and they weren't lucky enough to get a permanent job.

Or are you saying that, if you were in the position of a potential employer looking at that person's CV, you would assume they had made a hash of it? Harsh....

That's true, someone with no qualifications and no work experience would look less good than someone with no qualifications but a few weeks Workfare experience. But they wouldn't look half so good as someone with no qualifications who got a job shelf stacking without going through Workfare. However, if the jobs are being taken up by Workfare applicants, they can't be taken up by shorter-term jobseekers, so won't it just become a cycle of swapping over who is doing the 8 week stints, since new jobs are not actually being created in shelf stacking??????

New jobs are being created in shelf-stacking. Big retailers are opening new stores all the time. Tesco alone employs 260,000 people in the UK and retail staff are notoriously high turnover. They can cover their business with that number of people, and they are constantly recruiting, but if they can have another 1500 at no extra charge - one extra person per Tesco outlet - they'll find something for them to do. If when the work experience finishes one of the permanent staff has left for some reason, you may get lucky and be offered the job.

Of course someone doing work experience doesn't look quite as good as someone who had a permanent job doing the same thing. But I think you're splitting hairs.

It's a question of the best use of taxpayer's money and the best way to reduce unemployment.

On both of these counts waorkfare as it stands does not score very highly.

Better to use taxpayer's money to provide meaningful training in areas of skills shortage. Tesco's can afford to pay its own wage bill.

Meaningful training in areas of skill shortage is very expensive, though. Much easier to use a cheap sticking plaster for a severed artery.

A4e compelled jobseekers to work unpaid in its own offices

DWP reveals that A4e sent the unemployed to work in at least two of its own offices in an apparent conflict of interest

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/22/a4e-compelled-jobseekers-unpaid-offices

Why on earth can't the state run its own training organisations to get people into employment. Why do we need to pay private companies millions to do so?

The state runs lots of schools, why can't it run job training schools too?

Skill is a funny concept though; most of us think about it as be able to do something more than the norm; so either a result of some formal training or being taught to do something specific on the job. But this ignores some really important skills that most people have without thinking about them. These are the ability to get up in the morning at a certain, the ability to get your self organised, the ability to get on with people. Lots of the unemployed do not have these skills (in main i think because they or their parents have been unemployed). Any job can give people an incentive to acquire these skills and so make them more employable in the future. Please let me stress two thing before I get tomatos and rotten eggs at me. First I think the implied subsidy in the current workfare is too high - Tesco is essentially getting these workers for free. Second I do not for a moment believe that all those without jobs are like this.

That is true for some people. But I get the feeling that that is the subtext used to justify this initiative, when in reality most of the participants won't be like that at all.

It doesn't matter.

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premises to be true.

Why not limit work-experience schemes to charity and not-for-profit organisations? Young people could still learn the skills of going to work and being responsible without working for free for someone's profits.

Secondly, I do think that those type of people you're talking about are a very small minority, and I don't think many people on workfare will gain any skills whatsoever by stacking shelves at Tescos.

Finally, these workfare schemes, when applied to private companies, are actually harming the chances of lessening unemployment, since companies like Tesco would sooner take someone on for free under workfare than hire someone and pay them - in other words, they can crowd out paid jobs.

but the longer people remain unemployed, the more likely it is that low grade depression and habit will make them lose these skills. If there are no jobs because of the macro economic climate then doing some workfare will allow them to maintain these core skills.

Agree, but why not just make them get up and attend training courses to learn computer skills etc. That will get them into the habit of being punctual and sticking to a task, and will teach them useful skills.

Why would someone who wants to work in accountancy/building/healthcare etc even want a job at the end of a period of shelf stacking? Work 'experience' is targeted to your strengths and interests this refers to neither.

ttosca i agree, i think there are a lot of jobs that need doing; litter collection, street cleaning, football in the park after school for the local children, company for OAPs etc that councils (because of budgetry cuts) can no longer afford to do. Workfare should be directed at these tasks. I think this will also help because it will connect people to the wider community

Cogito, there is nothing resourceful about being "mandated" through a government programme into forced labour. So no it doesn't make unemployed people look resourceful

New shelf stacking jobs are being created? really where is this? Tesco is one of the largest landowners in this country, in fact much of it's asset wealth is tied up with land. People all over the country are protesting about Tesco's aggressive expansion. People don't want more Tesco stores.

In Asia, where the work force is exploited for low paid labour they are pulling out? Why because even the people they employ can't afford to shop there.

Worfare isn't about skills it's about Tax payer funded exploitation of waged labour. Labour costs are like any other resource in big business, so just as Tesco's buys up cheap land, bankrupts farmers, starves workers in the third world, it now exploits ever decreasing labour costs to increase profit.

It has few NEW ways in which to increase profits.

I would feel far less hysterical with anger uncomfortable about this if the workfair placements were only in not-for-profit organisations.

I have huge moral objections to Tesco, who are advertising permanent jobs as paying 'JSA + Travel costs' taking our taxpayers money to keep real jobs out of the market.

I don't see why the likes of tesco shouldn't be paid for providing people with an experience. Not everyone that goes on one of these schemes is going to be an enthusiastic asset to any company. Many of them will be lazy work shy Jeremy Kyle fodder who no one would employ otherwise. Of course companies should be paid to manage people like that.

Tesco had profits of £3.5 billion pounds last year IUse, you think they need state subsidised slave labour? The labour they get through these schemes undermines the minimum wage, takes work from their own employees and takes more money out of our economy - no money is paid in National Inurance/taxes whilst people are working for their JSA.

I use how do you explain the 60 year old man forced to work for his JSA at a local golf club for three months. (his sister phoned the Jeremy Vine show phone in.)
On another thread Huntycat told us about an ex Assistant Manager with several years experience being forced to do work "experience" in tesco.
Shes already got several years experience FFS.
So has the 60 year old man come to that.
AND they have both paid in to the pot while employed so they are in effect paying twice.
Will they be abolishing National Insurance then?

No I don't think they need subsidised labour, but they don't need me to pay for my potatoes either. Doesn't mean I shouldn't pay for them if they are providing me with something.

There are people that won't get off their arses and do anything without schemes like this. I am related to some of them. And not all of them have paid NI, but those that have will still have the benefit of the NHS in return for their NI.

People won't be paying in to the pot when they are doing this, but then they wouldn't be paying in anyway if they're unemployed.

There are people that should be exempt from having to do this, of course there are. I wish I could trust that it was well implemented but I don't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen at all though. Some people have found employment through this, so it can't be all bad.

I can't comment on situations I haven't heard about properly, such as this 60 yo and someone Hunty knows. But I don't see why someone being 60 is relevant.

Even if it doesn't help everyone into a job, it's got to be better than sitting at home and doing nothing.