Occupy Mumnset - Mumsnet, i know you are P(p)olitical. Seriously, can't you tell your advertisers to fuck off if they are workfaring?

[Tortington]

i got an e-mail telling me i had % of retailers that are involved in the workfare scheme and it occured to me that Mumsnet is usually on the side of good

oh staff of MN you know me well, whilst i was disappointed that the Maccy D advertising question was even asked, i wasn't arsed tbh. i've always shouted 'its a business not a charity' ...

but this is different - It is very very wrong, and you are perpetuating the wrongness by advertising them.

Sorry, addressed to claig.

Well, the Government contains a lot of classically educated people who got where they are by knowing how to talk and write and not by having to make or do anything useful in a practical sense or by having to be creative, pioneering or resourceful. Of course they don't know how to produce a generation of children with useful skills, because beyond reading and writing, they don't know what useful skills are - they think everything flows naturally from reading and writing and all the rest will be unlocked naturally the minute you can spell accurately.

I would love to see all five discussions of the day being threads like this.

Anotehr one?

here

That is very sad Sancti.

I think we should start a thread in every topic about workfare.

AIBU to think Workfare is state assisted euthanasia ? Listing people who have died whilst battling for their rights to the benefits they need.

What else, Style & beauty all about the Arcadia group and Philip Green?

Baby Names calling a child Slave?

Travel - how far do we have to go to find a country that doesn't use Workfare?

so then Mumsnet staff types what say you?

Custardo I don't think they will say anything on this thread, they might message you privately if you report this thread to them, "it is a political hot potato" - I think Mumsnet don't want to get involved.

State assisted euthanasia?

Don't you realise that you are pissing all over your own point by being that hysterical about it?

the example was AIBU - i think it was intended to be hysterical - thats the point

Evening all,

I do think this issue is actually a bit more complicated that meets the eye, as evidenced perhaps by the difference of opinion seen on this thread.

First, I don't agree that unpaid work experience is wrong per se. This is because it does seem to work. In fact I gather that it is pretty much the most effective scheme of many and various tried by the DWP to help young unemployed people into work. And given that it works, and that long term unemployment is so hugely debilitating for young people, it seems odd to be against it in principle.

That said, I do agree that were there evidence that a company was systematically abusing the scheme to avoid hiring people to permanent roles, and to merely to benefit from "slave" labour then we would most likely agree that they were right buggers and wouldn't want their presence on Mumsnet. I do think the new Tesco position, offering a paid four-week placement with a job if you complete it satisfactorily is an intrinsically better way of doing things because otherwise there will always be a suspicion/risk of abuse.

I also think that the compulsory element of this scheme (I think that if you drop out after the first week you lose a couple of weeks of benefits) does seem too Draconian - I think it's come about because of the idea that companies might devote resource into training etc so there has to be some incentive to stop people just being flaky - but it smacks a bit of it not being something that both parties voluntarily enter into for mutual benefit which is the only way it stacks up. That of course is for government to change, not individual businesses and we'll certainly see if anyone from government would like to come on to talk about that.

By the by we have just started an intern scheme here at MN. Interns are paid £1k per month and do a rotating 6 months around different bits of MNHQ and I really hope we end up hiring some of them permanently and that if not it helps them get jobs elsewhere.

Epetition against workfare.

Thanks Justine.

Is the Internship on MNHQ available to 40 something women returning to work after several years of self unemployment?

I didn't think Workfare was limited to young, unemployed people? Or even to people who have always been unemployed? So why talk only about young, unemployed people when referring to its benefits? Is it not beneficial to older people? What sorts of people are getting the jobs at the end of the process?

And why are young, unemployed people not permitted to find their own unpaid work experience in companies working in the sector in which they actually want employment? Because that would be too complicated to administer???? Because then it would be viewed as slave labour???? Because then they would be viewed as taking away jobs from people looking for paid employment???? Because nobody believes that anyone with that amount of get up and go could possibly be among the long term unemployed????

The example usually quoted to justify Workfare is that of the mother whose daughter found HERSELF some work experience and lost her benefits as a result (presumably meaning she then couldn't take up the offer), causing the mother to write to her MP to complain. Yet Workfare doesn't help people like that girl - it does nothing to encourage those who ARE willing to get off their backsides, it just treats everyone as an idle lump of meat which needs a good poke to see if it is still alive.

Why is nobody answering legitimate questions to prove that the scheme is well thought out and not just a cheap sticking plaster for a big problem, instead trotting out platitudes that don't quite ring true????

Well that's not bad money, over twice what I get on Employment and Support Allowance. Does anyone know how it compares to apprenticeships?

In DD(20)'s apprentice days (obv quite recent) she was paid half national min wage for a full working week by her first employer, and full nmw by her second, with whom she continued her employment after she completed her apprenticeship. Of course her apprshp lasted more than 6 months...

And does MN pay NI for their interns?

Is the Government sending inspectors in to the firms offering Workfare to view the sort of training and work experience being offered, or is it entirely at the discretion of each local store how they use someone, or whether they give them any training at all, or whether they use them in a way a normal employee would be used - do Workfare applicants get given a job description or is their role made up from day to day, or is it possible they will be more or less ignored most of the time they are there (as is the experience of quite a few unpaid work experience students on school placements)? Is anyone checking how much central guidance these big firms are giving their local branches (apparently limited to no guidance, except when embarrassing adverts come out, revealing that what the big bosses say in the boardroom doesn't filter down very well to the shop floor)? Do the firms involved get to scrutinise the CVs of Workfare candidates and have any choice in which ones are taken on, or is it all random? Do Workfare applicants get a choice of possible placements?

The simpler the scheme, the cheaper it is to run and the more open to abuse. I'm really not sure this Workfare scheme is ready to be rolled out on the scale proposed. I'm definitely not convinced the public understands enough about how the scheme is supposed to work, hence all the distrust. All I've read so far is a load of unconvincing soundbites.

'I do think the new Tesco position, offering a paid four-week placement with a job if you complete it satisfactorily is an intrinsically better way of doing things because otherwise there will always be a suspicion/risk of abuse.'

Justine, I disagree. Because anyone who takes up the 4-week paid placement will be UNABLE to claim Tax Credits (menaing no help with childcare costs either), and will ALSO have to put in a 'change of circumstance' to Housing benefit - which will suspend their HB for at least 6 weeks while it is reassessed. If they then DON'T get taken on by Tescos (which is fairly unlikely given that just 300 people have been offered paid work out of 3000 that have had placements there),they then face an INDETERMINATE length wait for the HB computer system to 'catch up' with 2 change of circumstances in less than 6-8 weeks. All the while, they are unable to PAY THEIR RENT. And are therefore evicted.

All of this means that they aren't ABLE to accept the 4-week paid placement and HAVE to accept the unpaid placement offered. Which both the DWP and Tescos et al KNOW.

This ISN'T an 'intrinsically better way of doing things'. It IS a soundbite designed to dupe anyone who doesn't look into it too closely to think that the unemployed are expecting something for nothing and whining about being made to work, especially when there is a job at the end of it.

If there was GENUINELY a job there at the end of it for EVERY participant in these 'back-to-work' schemes - then why don't Tescos etc ADVERTISE FOR PAID EMPLOYEES in the normal way? Because why advertise a job with a wage of £6.08/hr when you can get PAID to have someone on benefits to do the job, while they only get paid £1.92/hr.

And I'm sorry, but having WORKED in a supermarket before - I can attest to the fact that you get 2 hrs training as a PAID employee. And that covers everything from facing up, shelf-stacking, stock rotation, how to work the till, expected scanning speeds, security and what to do if you see a shoplifter, Health and Safety, proper lifting techniques, and a lot more.

I fail to see how the training is any more laborious for a 'back-to-work' scheme participant than it is for a paid employee. So a 4-week paid placement that you can't REALLY accept, or a 6-month unpaid placement that is your only other option?!...

EXACTLY Hunty that is EXACTLY the point.
And anyone who thinks that these companies dont know all this is seriously deluded.

Oh - and the current 'back-to-work' schemes run by the DWP have a LESS THAN 20% success rate. Which is measured by still being in work 6 months later, whether with the employer placed with or not, whether in the INDUSTRY placed in or not, even a succession of short-term jobs one after another, or agency work.

If the employment ISN'T with the retail company they were placed with, or not in the RETAIL industry - then how did the placement help that job seeker to gain employment, if the 'work experience' wasn't RELEVANT to the job they eventually got - the job that they found themselves, NOT with the help of the places tasked with helping them. (Just look at the headlines about A4E, read about Ingeus, and all the other places that have won huge contracts to 'deliver' these 'back-to-work' programs.)

How can it be successful with a

What I mean is that these people WOULD have found a PAID, PERMANENT job (That allows them to claim Tax Credits) if given just a few more months. There aren't enough jobs as it is - NOT everyone that is on benefits CAN be employed at the same time. There are LOTS more unemployed than there are jobs. (Can't remember the figure off the top of my head, but it is in one of the other 'Workfare' threads.)

And if Tescos, Poundland etc can get the jobs they need done WITHOUT having to pay wages - then there is no need for them to hire PAID staff. So it takes away low-level jobs for those people that WANT and NEED them.

Meaning that from being 80 applicants for each low-level PAID retail job, there becomes 160. And there will be less and less PAID retail positions available because why pay for what you can get paid FOR for free?

I just don't see these schemes as the best way to get people into work. I see the best way to get the unemployed into work as 1) Raise the NMW over a few years to what is a LIVEABLE amount. 2) Slowly taper Tax Credits and other in-work benefits down in line with the rise in NMW, bearing inflation in mind, until the costs of the low-level workers is borne FULLY by their employers. 3) STOP providing these companies with ANY free labour. They would still need that work done - so would then have NO CHOICE but to start hiring PAID employees again. 4) Change the immigration criteria to be for NEEDED SKILLED workers ONLY. 5) Put in place enough regulation to ENSURE that no-one can pay ANY person less than the NEW NMW for their labour. 6) Subsidise childcare, make it affordable for EVERYBODY, low paid or not.

These measures would have so many positive effects - first of all, those doing the low-level jobs would earn enough to cover their basic living costs WITHOUT any state help. This would mean a drastic reduction in the benefits bill (80% of housing benefit ALONE is paid to households that are in low paid work, then you would get the eventual cessation of Tax Credits as they would no longer be needed.). Once the companies are not provided with ANY free labour - they will HAVE to hire paid staff to do the work, and they cannot undercut the NEW NMW by hiring staff from abroad at less than NMW. And as childcare would be affordable, more SAHP's and Lone Parents would be able to take low-paid work. Or any work, for that matter.

Yes pay for MN interns does meet nmw doesn't it - but do MN and the interns pay NI? The interns won't get credits from the DWP will they? Or are they perhaps claiming JSA and declaring their income from MN?

How many interns do you have at any one time, MN? Can we conclude that really you should actually employ someone at £12,000 p.a instead of giving false hope to people. There ain't no jobs out there. What do your interns go on to do, or don't you know yet? Every time you take one person on as an employee, from being on the scheme (if you do), that is two fewer people a year you can offer internships to.

I repeat: there ain't no jobs out there.

Recent figures show that Ingeus took a 60% cut in their initial bid price to retain their govt. funded contract ,BIG price drop ,they "re still going, simple matter of fact ,the unemployed have become a tradeable commodity ,fact;no one pays when it is free,convince me otherwise and i"ll start trying to have faith in working for no cost to the org.at the moment the figures simply don"t stack up,methinks it"s carrot and stick flimflam ,meanwhile "old Joe just keeps on picking cotton"

the bakers adds to work experience scheme concern

GREGGs the bakers

sorry v. early

POUNDLAND HAVE SNUBBED THE SCHEME

awesome as greggs and poundland are next door to each other where i live, i can buy my cheap shampoo and eat a sausage roll and belgian bun to celebrate

huzzah