Dubstepforum.com

I am in employment and have been for a while but I've also experienced the grimout existance that is being unemployed.
This is without a doubt one of the most digusting, transparently corrupt schemes our dickhead government have come up with so far..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... intcmp=122

Basically, UK Taxpayer's money is used to pay benefits for 'unemployed' who must work without wage for large companies like Sainsbury's, Tesco's etc.. if they pull out they lose benefits.. WTF

Obviously it's opt in (opting out makes you look terrible though) but even the merest inkling of interest or 'verbal confirmation' is seen as binding and in some cases participants aren't even made aware of the conditions of the scheme they have agreed to..


massive

Not gonna happen, only aimed at the long term unemployed who keep refusing jobs and if they cut your benefit, they have to make it back up some other way. If the gov leaves you without money to feed/heat/clean yourself because you won't give free labour in exchange for job SEEKERS allowance, they are breaking the contracts term and conditions you originally signed, thus legally in the wrong and I'm sure the EC of Humans Rights would be inundated with cases of negligence.

It has happened to a friend of mine who actively looks for work. He was sent to work in a supermarket and got paid an extra 50p for every hour he worked on top of his benefits. Horrible tactics from the government.

They are just moving the goal posts to please middle england again.

Community work is a great idea, not so sure about the supermarket chains etc .... that is just a job !

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Not gonna happen, only aimed at the long term unemployed who keep refusing jobs and if they cut your benefit, they have to make it back up some other way. If the gov leaves you without money to feed/heat/clean yourself because you won't give free labour in exchange for job SEEKERS allowance, they are breaking the contracts term and conditions you originally signed, thus legally in the wrong and I'm sure the EC of Humans Rights would be inundated with cases of negligence.

did you read the article? It is happening and by agreeing to take part you agree to them docking your benefits if you pull out before your agreed tenure is up.

The idea that anyone should work for a profit making organisation for free (whether as an 'intern' or through a scheme like this) is utterly obscene.

Work > Earn > Live.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:They are just moving the goal posts to please middle england again.

Said like a true middle class boy

I've got a sneaky feeling this is what my interview with the JC next week is for.

lloydnoise wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Not gonna happen, only aimed at the long term unemployed who keep refusing jobs and if they cut your benefit, they have to make it back up some other way. If the gov leaves you without money to feed/heat/clean yourself because you won't give free labour in exchange for job SEEKERS allowance, they are breaking the contracts term and conditions you originally signed, thus legally in the wrong and I'm sure the EC of Humans Rights would be inundated with cases of negligence.

did you read the article? It is happening and by agreeing to take part you agree to them docking your benefits if you pull out before your agreed tenure is up.

It's only gonna happen as long as people are stupid enough to sign up. If you read you job seekers agreement, well when I was signing on.. it stated that lack of seeking employment by the way of insufficient evidence (job seeking diary) 'may' result in such repercussions as temporary suspension of JSA. Sooner or later, charities that have to pick-up these bill by providing temp payments for people with not enough money for food as a result will put pressure on gov to drop the program.
I've got mates that have failed to turn up to shit job interviews, had their JSA suspended, then backpayment, and started fresh because they knew the system and what cards to play.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

lloydnoise wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Not gonna happen, only aimed at the long term unemployed who keep refusing jobs and if they cut your benefit, they have to make it back up some other way. If the gov leaves you without money to feed/heat/clean yourself because you won't give free labour in exchange for job SEEKERS allowance, they are breaking the contracts term and conditions you originally signed, thus legally in the wrong and I'm sure the EC of Humans Rights would be inundated with cases of negligence.

did you read the article? It is happening and by agreeing to take part you agree to them docking your benefits if you pull out before your agreed tenure is up.

It's only gonna happen as long as people are stupid enough to sign up. If you read you job seekers agreement, well when I was signing on.. it stated that lack of seeking employment by the way of insufficient evidence (job seeking diary) 'may' result in such repercussions as temporary suspension of JSA. Sooner or later, charities that have to pick-up these bill by providing temp payments for people with not enough money for food as a result will put pressure on gov to drop the program.
I've got mates that have failed to turn up to shit job interviews, had their JSA suspended, then backpayment, and started fresh because they knew the system and what cards to play.

Whereas my brother who's Doctor has been willing to sign letters for years saying he's unfit for work due to a chronic light sensitivity issue has had his disability cut (because he's not fully blind despite only being able to deal with strip lighting for an hour or so and a computer screen for similar), been moved onto JSA and promptly had that cut because he had to turn down a job which would've left him with a migraine every day.

He's now finishing his recovery and retraining to a career he can survive in at my parents expense and living in their house until he can support himself again. I have no idea what people who's parents aren't comfortable enough to do this are supposed to do. Go on the game? Deal?

Welcome to Toryland. Population, FUCK YOU.

this is a good idea in my eyes. if they ''cant'' find work then they should be made to work while they are ''looking'' and receiving money for ''looking''. obviously this should only apply for long term seekers

Gewze wrote:this is a good idea in my eyes. if they ''cant'' find work then they should be made to work while they are ''looking'' and receiving money for ''looking''. obviously this should only apply for long term seekers

Not when large Co-operations are benefitting from free labour, you get paid for 'seeking' work and that benefit is to enable you to live/get by, why should you put in 30 hours a week at Tesco for that benefit and for them to then fuck you off and take the next person in line for the scheme rather than pay you a livable wage. Unpaid work experience, yes, forced labour stacking shelves for receipt of benefit, no.

my only objection to this scheme is that there's no plans to distinguish the slave labour from the real employees so I can't tell whether the advice I'm getting is pro bono.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

Gewze wrote:this is a good idea in my eyes. if they ''cant'' find work then they should be made to work while they are ''looking'' and receiving money for ''looking''. obviously this should only apply for long term seekers

Not when large Co-operations are benefitting from free labour, you get paid for 'seeking' work and that benefit is to enable you to live/get by, why should you put in 30 hours a week at Tesco for that benefit and for them to then fuck you off and take the next person in line for the scheme rather than pay you a livable wage. Unpaid work experience, yes, forced labour stacking shelves for receipt of benefit, no.

they could put them in charity shops or homeless shelters, great idea done the wrong way

Gewze wrote: they could put them in charity shops or homeless shelters, great idea done the wrong way

It's really not it's an awful idea which your spin on is rolled out in an attempt to justify

I think that getting people on JobSeekers to do a certain amount of community service would be justifiable. Especially if it was the equvilant time that it would take to earn JSA if the person was getting minimum wage (It works out to just under 9 hours). But getting people to work for corporations for up to 30 hours is just taking the piss.

I work at Asda (better than nothing though), and I currently get paid £6.60 an hour. Assuming that someone was made to work for 30 hours with the threat of losing their benefits they would be missing out on £145. And presumably it's still the tax payer that is paying for the benefits, meaning that the company doesn't have to spend anything on the person. With no garuntee of a job the company will probably just kick the person on benefits out after the trial period and get someone else.

I can see the point if they are guaranteed a job after the placement period, unless they completely fuck it up. Many people take up unpaid internships in other industries for training. But having said that, stacking boxes in a supermarket doesn't really require much training does it.

But, if they aren't guaranteed a job after that, then it's simply using taxpayer's money to give very profitable corporations a free workforce. If that's the case then these people should be sent to work for their communities instead.

[DELETE COMMENT. Total fail]

Apart from the idea that corporations can use the unemployed for menial work with no commitment to provide any actual job is bad enough in itself. It's not where it ends though, young people are already discrimintated against in terms of the minimum wage; UK rates are as follows according to directgov

£6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
£4.98 - the 18-20 rate
£3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
£2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

Having a graduated minimum wage encourages the replacement of people over a certain age with those younger when the job entails a minimum of training and those training costs will be more than covered by employing the cheaper younger person. Introduce some free labour and not only can you end up in a situation where temp paid jobs are replaced by free labour but it also creates downward pressure on the minimum wage which the current government is largely ideologically opposed to.

It can actually hurt employment rates.

As for the idea of donating time to charity or community services this seems better, but, many charities are at least trying to take a human rights approach to service provision. The use of this co-opted forced labour is an anathema to how they want to deliver services and making it compulsory under duress of payment removal is going to force many charities to not participate. We don't know whether there will be an impact to current internee or volunteering in the event that someone at the DWP wishes to interpret someones current volunteering as tantamount to acceptance of this scheme. You also have the issue that charities working in client focused work, including homeless shelters, wanting to place people that do not want to be in a position in front of clients. They aren't signing up for it.

Also if community work is required we should be looking at ways to actually fund it, you know pay people properly to do necessary work to community infrastructures rather than forcing people currently in receipt of benefits to do it.

It's fucking bollocks and is that headline grabbing bollocks that identifies the jobless as the problem rather than a system that doesn't create the jobs for them to do or when it does not wanting to pay them for it.