Unpaid workschemes are illegal

Also we were paying for the below minimum wage salaries instead of the companies.

Originally Posted by martyh

I think that was a blatant abuse of the system by G4S ,a different thing altogether

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 ----------



Because some people think they should get free money from tax payers with little or no obligation to the people who give it them

some tax payers like to focus on the unemployed rather that tax avoidance or mps expenses scandals or the fact billions have been wasted in pointless wars which we were lied to about in the first place

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

some tax payers like to focus on the unemployed rather that tax avoidance or mps expenses scandals or the fact billions have been wasted in pointless wars which we were lied to about in the first place

Most on the other hand like to focus on all of the above .

I am waiting to see what effect this judgement has on the unpaid work prisoners are ordered to do instead of jail time

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Most on the other hand like to focus on all of the above .

I am waiting to see what effect this judgement has on the unpaid work prisoners are ordered to do instead of jail time

So why is the Government singularly focusing on the unemployed and those on benefits whilst doing f-all about tax avoidance?

Originally Posted by martyh

Most on the other hand like to focus on all of the above .

I am waiting to see what effect this judgement has on the unpaid work prisoners are ordered to do instead of jail time

they do get paid though

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

they do get paid though

Nope ,Unpaid work for offenders is widely used ,it is more demanding and over a longer period than prison work which is a 40hr week.

http://open.justice.gov.uk/what%27s-changing/

The unpaid work for community sentences will be more demanding, with offenders working longer days and a longer working week.

---------- Post added at 12:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

So why is the Government singularly focusing on the unemployed and those on benefits whilst doing f-all about tax avoidance?

because tax avoidance is a much more complex issue

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I can add an item which happened to my son YESTERDAY, and this story sums it up.
My son suffers from Asperger's syndrome and wants to get a job in acting, he has applied for lots of work, but has been turned down, he has diplomas also.

But we found that agents were ripping him off, But we had a call from an agency that he has been with for TWO years, and they found him nothing, BUT they wanted to see him and took him, as he wont go on his own.

They told him that the government now insist that he finds voluntary work of lose his disability benefit that he is on.

A Major chemical company which is near us wants under the government scheme, wants him to work for 12 months FREE to keep his benefit.

We have already stated that he wants to work in acting, and have the correspondence to prove it, yet the agency is insisting that he does this work.

My son will never find a job with the disability that he has, but this insistence from the government is hitting the vulnerable hard and should be stopped and this story highlights the problem that will hit the government hard.

You cannot expect people to work for free, unless there is a guaranteed job at the end of it, and working at Pound land proves the point of forced labour.

And yet the government will challenge it, how expensive that will cost.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

They had the dole money. They were forced onto these schemes with the threat of losing it if they refuse . Ergo they were not being paid to work they were forced to work or be sanction there was no wage

How is that much different from being required to look for work or not to turn down job offers, or even work experience schemes whilst still at school. Why should people be allowed to escape the rules by saying that they think that the sort of work is beneath them. That is what Cait Reilly was actually 'saying'.

How many people on these schemes look like they are employable in the first place? They are given an opportunity to show what they can do.

Originally Posted by martyh

Because some people think they should get free money from tax payers with little or no obligation to the people who give it them

I think what we are suggesting is that the tax payer gives over benefits for those looking for work and that Poundland etc actually pays those who work for them and doesn't expect the TAXPAYER to subsidise Poundland etc by paying the wages of their employees.

Originally Posted by nomadking

How is that much different from being required to look for work or not to turn down job offers, or even work experience schemes whilst still at school. Why should people be allowed to escape the rules by saying that they think that the sort of work is beneath them. That is what Cait Reilly was actually 'saying'.

How many people on these schemes look like they are employable in the first place? They are given an opportunity to show what they can do.

If there is a job to be done it should be done as a job and paid for

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

If there is a job to be done it should be done as a job and paid for

If there was a 'paid for' job, the people on the scheme wouldn't have got it in the first place. It wouldn't be worth the risk for any employers to take on the seemingly unemployable. They would be more likely to take on an East European who would do the job.

Cait Reilly's problem is that if they had offered her a 'paid for' job, she probably would have turned them down.

Of course there are ways to make a scheme like this actually work.That the work they do benefits the community as a whole.That the work is work that will only be done by a volunteer in the local hospital or at a charity or the local library..

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

If there is a job to be done it should be done as a job and paid for

Including offenders ? don't offenders deny people getting jobs by doing unpaid work

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Of course there are ways to make a scheme like this actually work.That the work they do benefits the community as a whole.That the work is work that will only be done by a volunteer in the local hospital or at a charity or the local library..

They do infact do that, various schemes in the North East offer placements to unemployed people, offered meaning you are not forced onto it and your benefits will be fine if you said no. The placements I know about are:

NHS Admin. (Offers jobs at the end of placement if performance is good)
Libraries.
British Heart Foundation.
Care homes etc.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think what we are suggesting is that the tax payer gives over benefits for those looking for work and that Poundland etc actually pays those who work for them and doesn't expect the TAXPAYER to subsidise Poundland etc by paying the wages of their employees.

What you and others are failing to realise is that the job was never there to start with .It is easy to put someone to work all it does is act as a 'bonus' to those who do work at Poundland by virtue of them doing less work .It is a false and meaningless argument to suggest that because an unemployed person has been found a few floors to mop that they are denying someone else a job .Taxpayers are subsidizing those out of work to get into the habit of work and make them more employable not top give Poundland free staff to mop their floors ,that will be done regardless.