Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:15 pm  

The other problem is that it is also a vicious circle if you are participating in the Workfare Programme. You are claiming JSA and have to prove you are actively seeking work. People cannot actively seek work while working at Poundland for nothing therefore they have their JSA taken away for breaching the conditions. I have read this has actually happened to someone. I'll see if I can find the article and repost.

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:17 pm  

Standee wrote:

so, she's used taxpayers money to sue the taxpayer to get more taxpayers money

yup, sounds great for everyone

In suing the government she has prevented the likes of Poundland having the taxpayer subsidise their wage bill. Seems an obvious win for the taxpayer here.

And why does winning the case mean she would get more taxpayers money? If she were still unemployed she would just be getting the same £56.25 a week as she was before. What she wouldn't be forced to do is provide taxpayer funded cheap labour for Poundland.

As to your other comment regarding the fact she is now working part time in the supermarket this is so she can continue to work voluntarily in the museum which she feels will enable her to get a better job in the museum sector where she eventually wants to work. Sounds to me like she is a fine example of NOT being a benefits scrounger, is taking her own steps to enhance her employability in the field she wants to work in and that left to seek work herself rather than being compelled to work for nothing, she just highlights what a stupid system IDS had put in place.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:19 pm  

DaveO wrote:

In suing the government she has prevented the likes of Poundland having the taxpayer subsidise their wage bill. Seems an obvious win for the taxpayer here.

that I can agree with, she is getting benefit paid for by the state, Pounland pay nothing, to me, that's the real scandal.

Anyone who can work and is in receipt of benefits should, IMHO, be doing something to deserve them.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:20 pm  

Standee wrote:

so, she's used taxpayers money to sue the taxpayer to get more taxpayers money

yup, sounds great for everyone

That's how it goes with badly written legislation and always should be.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:21 pm  

Standee wrote:

Anyone who can work and is in receipt of benefits should, IMHO, be doing something to deserve them.

Agreed, the best thing they can be doing is devoting 39 hours a week to finding employment to get them off benefits, not boosting the profits of retailers.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:29 pm  

Standee wrote:

shows how employable she is then

Employable is a very funny word.

I'd assume most would agree that volunteering in a museum requires more than working part time in a supermarket.

Lets have a look at one piece of experience you need to get a job at a supermarket: stacking shelves.

Well most people have stacked shelves in their lives when food shopping needs unpacking and putting into the cupboards, fridge and freezer. However working in a museum requires knowledge which normally comes from a university education which Cait Reilly has had.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:40 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Employable is a very funny word.

I'd assume most would agree that volunteering in a museum requires more than working part time in a supermarket.

Lets have a look at one piece of experience you need to get a job at a supermarket: stacking shelves.

Well most people have stacked shelves in their lives when food shopping needs unpacking and putting into the cupboards, fridge and freezer. However working in a museum requires knowledge which normally comes from a university education which Cait Reilly has had.

more Damo nonsesne

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:45 pm  

Big Graeme wrote: Agreed, the best thing they can be doing is devoting 39 hours a week to finding employment to get them off benefits, not boosting the profits of retailers. I don't agree that devoting 39 hours a week to finding employment is productive at all due to the lack of jobs that pay a living wage out there atm. Lets look at the bigger picture. Ingeus (where I'm at) get paid millions to get the unemployed back into work and we all know how useless these companies are!

Big Graeme wrote: Agreed, the best thing they can be doing is devoting 39 hours a week to finding employment to get them off benefits, not boosting the profits of retailers. I don't agree that devoting 39 hours a week to finding employment is productive at all due to the lack of jobs that pay a living wage out there atm. Lets look at the bigger picture. Ingeus (where I'm at) get paid millions to get the unemployed back into work and we all know how useless these companies are!

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:46 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote: Fantastic result but unfortunately there's still a long way to go. Emma got a nice golden handshake mate, for making a sizable loss http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9788801/A4es-Emma-Harrison-paid-1.5m-dividend-despite-pre-tax-loss.html

Damo-Leeds wrote: Fantastic result but unfortunately there's still a long way to go. Emma got a nice golden handshake mate, for making a sizable loss http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9788801/A4es-Emma-Harrison-paid-1.5m-dividend-despite-pre-tax-loss.html

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:47 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

She is a taxpayer as she now works part time in a supermarket and has done for months..

Very unlikely she will be paying and pay related taxes if she is only working part time unless her hourly rate is huge!!