From my experience in business there was little or no benefit to us as an employer in taking someone on short term work experience for a week or two. We did get some free work out of people, but it was time consuming in that we had to carry out an induction (health and safety, tour of building, explain how the place worked, use of computer systems/equipment,...
I've listened to preachers, I've listened to fools
I've watched all the drop outs, who make their own rules
One person conditioned, to rule and controll
The media sells it, and you live the role
It is just 'work expierience ' in a new name all of my 5 kids have done it.
One worked at Tesco , one in a bakery , one in an electrical retailer,can't remember where the other 2 did it. Two of them were offered permanent jobs afterwards by the place they had worked. The companies are not going to get much benefit from having a 2 week work expieience trainee with them, they have to have supervision by a qualified worker and write a report on each trainee.
EDDIE51 they did a scheme years back like this i had a mate who went on one , i think he worked for 6 months then the firm told him they did not have enough work in to keep him on
a week or two later they would start another lad and keep him for 6 months if he turned up on time evey day and worked hard
I'd quite like a job inspecting David Beckhams underwear drawer. Should I expect the goverment to give me benefits while I sit around waiting to be offered that job?
>>A university graduate yesterday issued a landmark judicial review proceedings against the Government after she was forced to stack shelves at Poundland.
Cait Reilly, 22, has been looking for work since she left Birmingham University and has been volunteering on an unpaid basis until ordered to accept a two-week placement in the retail sector.
This involved her sweeping up and filling the shelves at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, also on an unpaid basis. <<
>> Now lawyers acting for the geology graduate have launched proceedings claiming that she had been made to carry out 'forced labour' or lose her benefits.
She had been looking for work in the museum sector and had undertaken unpaid voluntary work at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.
Her solicitor Jim Duffy claims this is against the European Convention on Human Rights.
He said yesterday: 'This Government has created - without Parliamentary authority - a complex array of schemes that allow Job Centres to force people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks or months at a time.
'By doing so it worsens rather than alleviates the cycle of unemployment that is such a significant barrier to addressing the economic crisis.' <<
This is free labour for huge business enterprises and the Govt is party to it- yet people wonder why so many people can't get a paid job. It's not good business sense to employ anyone if you can get them for free- at this rate the likes of Tesco, Asda, Poundland and Boots won't be employing anyone if they can get graduates for s0d all.
There is precious little benefit to the taxpayer in these schemes.
The taxpayer still stumps up for the JSA paid to the claimant whilst the big firms get free labour. They are not duty-bound to offer a permanent job at the end of the 8 weeks and will simply take on another shelf-stacker whom they don't have to pay at the end of it.
Millions of people do jobs they absolutely hate - and often jobs which they are vastly overqualified for - because it brings in the money. How long does she expect other people to keep her whilst she looks for a job she 'likes'?
But Naomi, you are missing the point- if this continues no-one will ever be employed by these stores- they will simply cycle through free labour ad infinitum... nothing to do with what she 'likes' or doesn't- it does the country as a whole no good.
Nox, I've been in business, and I know what you're saying, but if that were true, companies couldn't operate because none of their staff would ever be proficient at their jobs. I know mine couldn't have operated solely on this scheme. Far from it. The point it is if able bodied people were made to work for their benefits - even if that amounts to working in the community - they'd pretty soon look for a job that pays more. I've no objection whatsoever to paying for people who need to be cared for, but I resent paying for those who, like this girl, don't want to do jobs they don't fancy - or indeed for those who don't want to work at all. It's an unhealthy culture, and one for which the much abused Welfare State wasn't designed. I would sooner see the money be spent caring for our elderly, sick, and disabled properly. That would be far more beneficial to the country as a whole.
>> I would sooner see the money be spent caring for our elderly, sick, and disabled properly. That would be far more beneficial to the country as a whole. <<
thing is the sick and the elderly are facing cuts so they will never see any of this money
When there are 2.5 million jobs that people won't take, rather than 2.5 million people without a job, then schemes forcing benefit claimants into unsuitable work might have a point.
I'm unsure how proficient a shelf stacker has to be. It's not like it's that skilled, you just need someone who needs a job and will endure a boring mind numbing grind all day, don't you ?
There are businesses for which this scheme is certainly not appropriate. However, it is irksome that the very companies which make billions in profits (that's not turnover that's profits) can further benefit from free labour and we, the taxpayer, are still paying the worker......I really don't see the difference between this 'work' and them sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle. My tax-bill isn't going down.....the supermarkets aren't reducing their prices.....
I absolutely take your point that if you are able-bodied there should be some sort of scheme in place to get you working and contributing. Perhaps employers involved in this scheme should have to agree, under Law, to give permanent positions to a number/proportion of the 'freebie' staff they are sent?
"companies couldn't operate because none of their staff would ever be proficient at their jobs".
naomi, that's pretty much how Foyles used to run (they've joined the real world now). They used to sack everyone the day before they acquired employment rights and hire new ones on the same basis, mainly because Miss Foyle loathed human rights, trade unions etc. Result: bookshop staff were just shelf stackers and nobody ever knew where anything was. (Also, they used a strange Soviet payment system in which you had to join three queues.) I gave up going there.
When she died they held a huge sale of books that had been there for decades because nobody had ever known where to find them.
Darned if I know how they ever survived, but there wasn't a lot of competition then, which probably helped.
sandyRoe >>
When there are 2.5 million jobs that people won't take, rather than 2.5 million people without a job, then schemes forcing benefit claimants into unsuitable work might have a point. <<
where are all these jobs , why do people look so hard for work go home depressed that they could not find any work
i knew a man who went out everyday looking for work he ended up after many months looking for work putting a rope round his neck
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.