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?????

Of course, those involved in helping to ensure the competition remains competitive in the NHS, like GPs, don't want anything to do with it. That doesn't bode well...

What I don't get is that the basic premis is that competition between private companies delivers the best value for the tax payer.

And yet we see time and again that once the private company has a monopoly on the service than it will bleed the service (and the taxpayer) dry. Take the railways - I get a certain train as I need to commute, I do not have any choice, there is not other train company which will take me so if my fares rise and the service is shite and I have to suck it up. Ditto power companies and PFI (which is an absolutely bloody scandal) and these so called training companies which nominally 'train' jobseekers in some sort of IT skill and give them a poxy, worthless certificate at the end.

It will be the same with the NHS. I don't want choice in the NHS, I want good medical care when I need it.

Intelligent debate on LBC 97.3 about workfare right now

Conclusion: whether state run and owned or privately run and owned, if you are providing an essential service, you are protected when you do a bad job. However, if you are privately owned, not only are you protected, you can still make a huge personal profit - and so can anyone holding shares in your company, which will no longer be the State because it sold the shares off cheaply to profiteers. And, being a private company, there is no expectation that you will have public service as your motivation for working there. I would rather well meaning inefficiency over malign inefficiency, tbh.

"What I don't get is that the basic premis is that competition between private companies delivers the best value for the tax payer."

Its very true. Clearly, there have been horrendously inefficient state monopolies in the past, and in some cases (telecoms being the main one I can think of) privatisation has had a benefit.

But inevitably, a private company will have to deliver a profit for its shareholders, while a state run enterprise has only to pay wages + other costs.

Also, while the State may have to borrow money to fund capital investment & so on in a state run enterprise, in general and on the whole they can do so much more cheaply than a private company.

Telecoms have benefited from huge innovation. Trains and water, for example, haven't - better services and newer technologies are vastly expensive for insufficient personal gain to the companies concerned: the gains would all be to the consumer, not the provider. Better to hold out until facilities are so badly falling to bits that the Government has to inject huge amounts of cash to help fund improvements (being essential services and all) - that way the shareholders and company directors don't have to lose out on their payouts or otherwise impoverish their own bank balances.

If there isn't a new, big idea that people are willing to pay for, it's very difficult to make shareholders' expected increasing profits out of the same old, same old - particularly when there is the added irritation of maintaining expensive networks and pipes. Basic healthcare is not very profitable, either - new and expensive treatments are, though, if you are willing to pay for them.

Private enterprise is not there to look after our basic needs, it's there to make a profit out of new ideas. Yet, to attract the "best directors" we have to pay them as though they are running innovative companies. And innovation isn't always in everyone's best interests, since it results in a further squeezing out of people from the job market - people whose skills are no longer required or which are no longer a source of profit, and who are not capable of learning the new skills required. It's not always laziness that makes one incapable of getting a job, but a lack of interest and need in your particular abilities. Huge swathes of people are being rendered useless, or pushed into work that pays too little to live on (because it's essential work, not innovative work), because those who can are riding on a wave of exciting innovation and not caring who it is they leave behind, or who they are using to do their dirty, low paid and unpaid work - until they too fall off the wave, that is.

Facebook 5 day protest

and on Twitter.

20 Towns And Cities Line Up to Take Action Against Workfare

Come to the protest the Tories want to ban!

Despite hysterical Tory threats to crack down on workfare protest?s, 20 towns and cities have lined up to take action next Saturday 3rd March and the number is growing daily.

Action is set to take place in Belfast, Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Lincoln, Sheffield, Aberdeen, York, Margate, Tunbridge Wells and Oxford.

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/20-towns-and-cities-line-up-to-take-action-against-workfare/

I think it is 22 now ttosca

:)

Maybe all employers who are keen to take part in the scheme ought to be personally subject to it for a fortnight ...

Perhaps a S'rAlan type might care to come around by bike at 7am one morning to clean my toilet, for example. I would be very considerate and make sure I taught him how to do it properly.

Sounds good to me Boffin.

Thing is, I am quite fussy, me. None of this trying to be ambitious or add value, or come up with fancy money making schemes selling things to next door. I would expect him to get through the required amount of toilet cleaning in the necessary time, and I would then inspect it for germs. Simples.

Bet he couldn't do it.

Oh, don't waste your time teaching him. Leave him to learn on the job, it's cheaper. Make sure you get the Government to pay for your bleach, though, in case he wastes it.

Toilet cleaning is actually a skill that is beyond most men. Or it appears to be, anyway.

List here of companies to tweet about using Workfare type schemes.

Also, while the State may have to borrow money to fund capital investment & so on in a state run enterprise, in general and on the whole they can do so much more cheaply than a private company.

In theory yes, in practice no. If that were true, we'd all be living in a communist state.

In practice having politician's run companies is a piss poor idea. Their priority isn't the efficient running of a company but to get reelected. A private company seeks to be efficient to generate profits.

So you end up with companies stuffed full of people who are no longer required because sacking them would be electorally unpopular.

Whereas being piss poor at choosing an efficiently run, ethical company to provide monopoly services means you can still be re-elected, because it's the private company's fault it's more interested in profit than service.... And when the private company is both piss poor and doesn't employ many people within the UK, the government pays the unemployment benefit and subsidises the useless company with taxpayers' cash in order that it may provide a basic service for everyone. So, in theory, privately run enterprises should always be better. In practice, no. You win some, you lose some, as they say.

And now the State is attempting to provide communist-style employment - everyone has to be useful for their money and the State will pay them and tell them what to do, rather than private enterprise. It seems to me we are getting the absolute worst of both worlds.

And as for the priority of politicians being not to sack state employees - that is clearly a huge porkie, niceguy2. Clearly politicians think sacking state employees is an excellent vote winner. And a private company does not seek to be efficient to generate profits, it seeks to destroy all competition so that it can call the shots, whether via efficiency savings or via less palatable means (like relying on the State or charities to help people survive on wages too low to be able to afford a reasonable standard of living). If efficiency savings mean mass unemployment and skewed competition between big and small businesses, that is still the problem of the State - that fact that it isn't the problem of the prviate employer doesn't make the problem go away.

Facebook protest - Monday-Friday this week, 7-9pm. Join in!
www.facebook.com/events/373373192687532/

The recent YouGov poll (23rd - 24th February 2012) shows much more support for the governement changes from the average voter than the average MNer:

"There is majority support for both the voluntary work experience system (supported by 59% and opposed by 34%) and mandatory work placements for long term unemployed people (supported by 61% and opposed by 32%). On the principle of whether companies are making a positive contribution by taking part in the scheme or exploiting the unemployed, 52% think it is a good thing for companies to provide unpaid work, 34% think it is a bad thing."

ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/yougov

I sent this e-mail to [email protected],

Dear Mr Grayling

I am against the Government's Workfare Scheme I refer to all schemes that penalise people who withdraw from them resulting in the loss of their benefits including ;

The Work Experience programme

Community Activity Programme,

WRAG/ESA,

Mandatory Work Activity,

Sector-based work academies,

The Work Programme.

I do not in principle oppose the unemployed gaining good quality work experience, that does not involve a full working week and gives them time to pursue available jobs. The compulsory schemes offer companies a steady stream of free labour, just at a time when the emphasis should be on creating stable and lasting employment. If as the Government you would like us to believe that "we are all in this together" then companies making huge profits from the custom of ordinary people should do something to help people back into work without profiteering from free labour - taking precious over-time from part-time workers or reducing the number of jobs available to jobseekers.

I will continue to oppose this scheme and boycott every company that participates, until all organisations involved either remove themselves or amend their terms. All that is needed is a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and not have people forced (or blackmailed by the state) into mandatory Work Experience Schemes which do not offer this basic right.

Whilst I am being slandered by you in the media, being called such astonishing names as left wing, militant and Socialist I would like to make it clear that none of these are correct, I have no political affiliations. I ask that you stop using such misinformed rhetoric. All who oppose back to work schemes that are mandatory and penalise benefit claimants are predominantly ordinary people, and it is offensive to be treated so contemptuously.

I look forward to your response. I think this is what unemployed people need to help them back to work.

1. All schemes should be voluntary

It's right to offer encouragement for jobless individuals to take up work placements, but the moment they are forced onto the scheme their ability to make the most of their experience diminishes.

1. They should take into account the individual's career hopes

Stacking shelves may be useful for someone looking for a career in the retail business, but not if he or she is a car mechanic. If their hopes are unrealistic, careers advice may be more helpful.

1. They should take experience and qualifications seriously

If the individual is significantly over- or under-qualified for the placement, or already has experience in that field, the benefits to them will be significantly reduced.

1. They should offer a learning experience

The placement should be structured so that, at the end, the job seeker should have a clear idea of how they have benefited. Ideally there should be some kind of project, the completion of which could be added to their CV.

1. There should be a time limit

The longer these schemes last, the more it can be claimed that they are replacing real jobs with free labour. They should run for a maximum of four weeks, or less if the learning element ends sooner than this. Companies participating must show that they are actively looking for new employees, and they have jobs available for the majority of those participating.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Kind regards,

The YouGov poll was only for Tory/LibDem/Labour voters from what I could tell.

That is not correct - look on page 1 at 'Other Parties Voting Intention'.