Working For Free Proves Unlawful.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277426/Iain-Duncan-Smith-condemns-Poundland-benefits-ruling-opens-40m-floodgate.html#axzz2KhbgXRat

Doesn't the Government consult their legal teams before introducing certain measures?

[jake-the-peg]

Probably - and it probably ignores their advice too

That woman who IDS thinks should be working at Poundland was already doing volentary work at a museum after her geology degree and the DWP made her give that up to stack shelves at Poundland for free!

Hardly going to get her better job prospects was it?

[honeydip]

Wait a second here. Will she not be getting paid job seekers allowance, travel to and from work AND housing benefit?

Who says she isn't getting paid?

[factor-fiction]

But she has now got a job in a supermarket so maybe the Poundland entry on her CV helped

[FredPuli43]

The short answer is "No" , aog. The problem here, as quite often, is that ministers want regulations drawn up quickly, which they can sign into law, all pursuant to an Act. Unfortunately, whoever draws up the regulations doesn't do more than do what they think the minister wants and doesn't read the Act, which gives him the power, properly, first.If they did, they'd find either that the Act doesn't give a power to make some regulations at all, or that the regulations they've drawn up are inconsistent with it, or with other laws.

A prize example? A colleague took a cab. The driver was complaining about being prosecuted under the regulations for Heathrow Airport. Being bored, she took the trouble to research the regulations. They made sense. She then looked for the statute which empowered the minister to make regulations. It gave a power but only to regulate certain restricted topics, such as speed limits. The regulation which the cab driver was prosecuted under was one which the Act didn't give the minister any power to make and so was ultra vires and completely unenforceable. What had happened was, over many years, regulations were made as and when, as the minster's department thought fit, and nobody had bothered to check the Act

[bazwillrun]

Obviously not !
If Poundland or any other company has jobs that need doing, then they should pay the people PAYE that do them.
Any benfits should take that pay into account.

what I do find amusing and pathetically naive is how many people (judging by readers comments on lots of the news site) actually believe that doing a job such as the one this particular women refused is a stepping stone to bigger and better things.

for a miniscule handful of people perhaps but for the majority its just a waste of their time, time that they could be using to look for more suitable jobs.
It wont make your CV look "good", youd be better of hedging your bets with a few porkies.

Have a friend whos a "Senior HR consultant" posh speak for interviewer !, who says he doesnt know of any company that would look more favourably upon a CV because of a useless forced job placement from a government scheme.

And if youre going for a job thats at the same sort of skill level this woman was asked to do, then usually it doesnt need anything in the way of real training anyway, so they really arent that bothered.

i have employed numerous people over the years and it wouldnt impress me in any way or form

[factor-fiction]

i disagree with you baz, but I accept that there is no right and wrong answer, and the scheme will benefit some more than others, and that neither of us will change our minds based on our experience and those of others.

[honeydip]

I maintain what I said before she was certainly not doing it for nothing. People like this is what is destroying our country. She should be happy to try or do anything to avoid hand outs! Obviously not! Pathetic

[LazyGun]

The principle - of the state encouraging back to work schemes for those on benefits - is sound. The implementation, by means of these "workfare" schemes, seems confused, disjointed and questionable.

In this particular instance, the jobcentre staff advised this woman that it was mandatory that she sign up for this programme - of stacking shelves in poundland for free. This was not the case. It was mandatory to attend work once you have signed up, but not to actually sign up in the first place.

Some of these schemes could be considered questionable. It seems to me that large corporations can use such schemes to subsidise corporate profits. Further, they deny existing paid workers overtime opportunities, and drive down basic wage requirements.

[FredPuli43]

The old system, which survives, was abused. Many a youngster has been offered a job as 'a trainee' or 'intern' on tiny wages or no wage at all, only to find that the employer chucked them out and get another 'trainee' or 'intern' to do what is menial donkey work of no educational or training value whatsoever.

[tonyav]

Thought that you lived in Spain honeydip ?.

[honeydip]

Well it's just north of the Spanish boarder but actually France.

[tonyav]

Righto honeydip.

[factor-fiction]

Yes, I don't think the working for 'free' issue is the issue upon which this has been deemed unlawful- isn't it the sanctions and the compulsion element that caused the problem.
As honeydip says they are not working for free as they get benefits and maybe some travel costs.
It's also not really free labour for the employers- in my experience work experience people were often more trouble than they are worth, especially if they are unwilling. Someone from Poundland would have to train them, supervise them, check their work and report on their performance, attendance etc, although I accept some employers may cut corners on this. Some firms have left the scheme because the drawbacks exceed the benefits of free labour

[bazwillrun]

Ok to keep it simple, apart from the court ruling its illegal etc.

If Poundland have jobs that need doing, why arent they paying people to do them.

If the government says people should be doing them why arent they telling Poundland to pay them the minimum salary or more if its a higher paid job.

If their benefit is a say £100pw and the job pays £70 then they only get £30 benefit, as long as the net figures are the same then I dont see any problem, apart from sending people to do totally unsuited work, which for the vast majority wont be of any use whatsover

[LazyGun]

@factor 30 And some employers withdrew from the scheme because of the bad publicity of being associated with the idea of "forced" labour.

And I doubt the level of supervision and/or training for menial jobs is that great.

[aelmpvw]

'unwilling' is the key word ... a scheme forcing people to do jobs they don't want to do is doomed to failure

[bazwillrun]

If the government says people
should say unemployed people

[Old_Geezer]

Working for free should be unlawful. It stops someone doing it as their paid employment and they stay on benefits.

[bazwillrun]

@aelmpvw

precisely

they will at most get the minimal amount of effort from people needed to get by and stay there so as not to get kicked out and lose any benefits.

A fair amount of them will probably be disruptive in some way or another.
I'm sure all the big companies inolved even though they havent exactly said it know this and that why some have pulled out.

what would you rather have working for you, someone who wants to be there or someone who doesnt ?

bit of a no brainer really

[Baldric]

///People like this is what is destroying our country.///

Well you're not exactly helping it by living in France are you?