Unpaid workschemes are illegal

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I dunno, public sector work?
Didn't the USA govt put loads of unemployed people to work on big public projects in the 30's?

doing contractors out of work?

[Ramrod]

The able bodied 'unemployable' cannot be allowed to remain on the dole indefinitely. That's just taking the mick.
They somehow must be introduced into work then become employable and then into 'proper' jobs.
This thread is about the govts cack-handed way of attempting to do this.
They (imo) have the right idea, just have gone about it the wrong way......

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

doing contractors out of work?

I know, it's a tricky problem. That's why the govt has made a hash of it so far......

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So in the meantime how is she to live?The museum wasn't paying anyone and wasn't hiring anyone.The JSA is used to to cover costs and to help her to seek work until she can get a full time job that she can use the degree for which she is already in student debt.

Some of you just don't realise how lucky you are to have a job..and don't have to jump through hoops to get a job.

It's her choice, do workfare in return for benefits or work at the museum for no benefits.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I dunno, public sector work?
Didn't the USA govt put loads of unemployed people to work on big public projects in the 30's?

Ah, so you don't mean 'unemployable' as in 'lacking the skills required to become employed', but rather 'unemployed'.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by danielf

Ah, so you don't mean 'unemployable' as in 'lacking the skills required to become employed', but rather 'unemployed'.

By 'unemployable' I mean those without the basic skills/training/inclination to do any sort of skiled work and the drive to actually better themselves or find any sort of work.......'layabouts' if you like......
I have every sympathy for the unemployed who are trying to find a job........though when I was in that situation I went and worked for McD's till I found something better......

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I dunno, public sector work?
Didn't the USA govt put loads of unemployed people to work on big public projects in the 30's?

We have a national minimum wage now.
it's there to protect people from working for peanuts or their dole money only.

would you work 39hrs for £71

so why should an 'unemployed' person?

how many hours would you be prepared to work for, for £71?

why does anyone think that it's ok to exploit the unemployed.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

I would have been prepared to do this, but it looks like it will be scrapped now. Wonder if this will cover me in dumping Ingeus? Waste of my time and money sitting in a room for hours every day doing the exact same thing I do at home.

The forcing bit looks to be scrapped yes but you can still ask to be put on an unpaid placement in a workplace via the work programme.

how many hours would you be prepared to work for, for £71?

4-7 hours in my line of work. Based on the average £10-£15ph.

[Gary L]

Workfare is NOT supposed to help anybody into work. Workfare IS supposed to punish the unemployed for their unemployment in much the same way as community sentences are designed to punish petty criminals for committing petty crimes.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Well lets make several points on this 'work for free' scheme by this awful coalition, l have been under several schemes when l was unemployed and now my son has had to go through it.

The governments pay these companies to take these unemployed people on, in the hope it will give them full time work, well it doesn't. I went to an interview for a so called 'scheme employer' they told me up front that l would not get a job BUT l had to do it or l would lose my benefit.

Many companies have pulled out of the scheme due to protesters outside there branches, this l agree with entirely. All companies are involved and it is wrong and it is slave labour.

My son has been forced to work for some famous brands on the High Street, he is disabled, and he was treated appallingly by the management, he worked there for 'work experience' and did it for TWO weeks.

Instead of insisting on this Free work, the coalition have got to create employment, the only people making money out of us and the Government is job agencies.

You go to any Job Centre and 9/10 the jobs available are through Job Agencies, which make money out of us.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Gary L

would you work 39hrs for £71

Yes, if there was no other work avaliable. That shows that I'm willing and able to work and makes it easier for me to get my next better paid job.....and so on.
I have done this and it works......McD's->Nationwide->Homebase->Chandos Records (warehouse), getting training along the way.......each time I changed jobs I got a job paying more.

so why should an 'unemployed' person?

See above

how many hours would you be prepared to work for, for £71?

To get a 'decent' job? Quite a few.....

why does anyone think that it's ok to exploit the unemployed.

Why do some unemployed think its ok to exploit the taxpayer?

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

The forcing bit looks to be scrapped yes but you can still ask to be put on an unpaid placement in a workplace via the work programme..

The forcing bit will not be scrapped ,that has been upheld in todays judgement as it was in the original appeal last year .What is wrong is the ESE regulations governing the schemes and applied by the DWP are wrong and so need to be re done

Two claimants who had been placed on two different Government schemes were granted permission to seek a judicial review to challenge the validity of the Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) (ESE) Regulations 2011 which underpin these schemes. The Community Action Programme trialled the provision of mandatory community work for the very long-term unemployed, while the sector-based work academies (sbwa) scheme includes work experience and training.
The Court of Appeal has backed an earlier High Court judgment that requiring participation in the schemes does not breach human rights, and that a formal policy statement is not required before Regulations can be enforced.
While the judgment supports the principle and policy of our employment schemes, and acknowledges the care and resources we have dedicated to implementing these schemes, the Court of Appeal ruled that the regulations did not describe the schemes to which they apply.
The Court of Appeal has therefore quashed the ESE Regulations. We are appealing that verdict, but in the meantime we are tabling new regulations to ensure that we can continue requiring people to take part in these schemes which give them the skills and experience they need to find work.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press...wp022-13.shtml

The full judgement is here paras 63-68

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...tary-state.pdf

Why do some think it's OK to exploit the unemployed?

Not everyone who is unemployed is long term unemployed and I don't see why anyone who has paid their taxes whilst working should be treated like **** when they are made redundant.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Not everyone who is unemployed is long term unemployed and I don't see why anyone who has paid their taxes whilst working should be treated like **** when they are made redundant.

You are quite right
All my musings are about the long term 'unemployables'

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You are quite right
All my musings are about the long term 'unemployables' who have no desire to get a job (or those who won't consider a basic wage job, no matter that they don't have any actual qualifications & no plans to get any)

Exactly right ,trouble is that no matter how many times that is clarified some on here take it that all unemployed are being criticised

[Arthurgray50@blu]

To me its very cruel that the Unemployed are treated so badly, a large majority of the unemployed, have become so by fault of there own.

They are treated as a number by the JC's, and should not be regarded as cheap labour by companies out to make a quick buck. It should be the government that invest in this country to bring employment to the unemployed.

The biggest insult that l have ever had was speaking to a JC advisor, who said l wasn'trying hard enough to find a job - despite having THREE interviews in the same week and 25 letters of rejection - the work l was being offered was by getting the interviews myself and NOT going through the job Centre, that didn't have anything for me.