[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:48 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

More drivel - so to stand on the door of a museum and show people where to go or working behind the counter of their shop needs a university education?

Well that shows your ignorance of the jobs that are available in museums. Curators of various collections and so on are highly qualified people. There are other jobs in the educational departments of large museums that require specialist subject knowledge.

Sal Paradise - rlfans no. 1 philistine.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:07 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Well that shows your ignorance of the jobs that are available in museums. Curators of various collections and so on are highly qualified people. There are other jobs in the educational departments of large museums that require specialist subject knowledge.

Sal Paradise - rlfans no. 1 philistine.

but they're not workshy freeloaders doing 16 hours a week at Morrisons, I am sure

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:36 pm  

Standee wrote:

but they're not workshy freeloaders doing 16 hours a week at Morrisons, I am sure

Are suggesting working part time while volunteering elsewhere in order to further ones ambitions for a better career is work-shy and free-loading behaviour? Or is that kind of thing only acceptable for people from wealthy backgrounds funded by rich parents who can therefore afford to work for nothing as interns?

Social mobility? Obviously not allowed in Standee-land.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:37 pm  

Standee wrote:

but they're not workshy freeloaders doing 16 hours a week at Morrisons, I am sure

How is doing 16 hours at Morrisons workshy freeloading?

I understand that workers freeload on a number of things like staff toilets. Why bother using the toilets at home when you can use them at work? Might as well keep your own water bill down

Then of course there's the staff discounts you get for working in a supermarket. Some people work more hours for those discounts which is an outrage!

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:21 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...

I'm not up to speed on this one, how does it work?

Do Poundland (etc) claim that they are taking on staff-for-free for positions that they otherwise would not fill? i.e., Extra staff just to give those staff work-experience?
If so, how is that verified?
Or do Poundland (etc) simply rotate staff that they get for free whilst the taxpayer picks up the bill?
If the latter, then IDS has a feckin nerve criticising tax credits (which IMHO should be reduced/abolished and a living wage introduced instead).

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:34 pm  

This one is not done and dusted. There is still the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Curious - should said girl lose in Supreme Court who will cover the Government's legal costs?

That regardless, this whole episode has probably done her career prospects no good. She will now be listed as a potential trouble causer who employers will probably choose to avoid.

Still, so long as Phil Shiner and his mates have made a few quid out of it job's a good 'un.

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:46 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I'm not up to speed on this one, how does it work?

Do Poundland (etc) claim that they are taking on staff-for-free for positions that they otherwise would not fill? i.e., Extra staff just to give those staff work-experience?
If so, how is that verified?
Or do Poundland (etc) simply rotate staff that they get for free whilst the taxpayer picks up the bill?
If the latter, then IDS has a feckin nerve criticising tax credits (which IMHO should be reduced/abolished and a living wage introduced instead).

It's the latter though they may try and dress it up as the former. Poundland say that they have slots free to give the unemployed some work experience and the girl in question was given the job for two weeks. The Job Centre tells an unemployed person this opportunity has arisen and that they must accept the post or lose their job seekers allowance. Poundland doesn't pay the employee (or the government) a penny for the persons services.

The case of the older bloke is actually worse as that would have involved him working 30 hours a week for his £71 JSA for six months. Tax payer funded exploitation and nothing less.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:47 pm  

Standee wrote:

DaveO wrote:

Well that shows your ignorance of the jobs that are available in museums. Curators of various collections and so on are highly qualified people. There are other jobs in the educational departments of large museums that require specialist subject knowledge.

Sal Paradise - rlfans no. 1 philistine.

but they're not workshy freeloaders doing 16 hours a week at Morrisons, I am sure

This is a joke, right?

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:52 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

That regardless, this whole episode has probably done her career prospects no good. She will now be listed as a potential trouble causer who employers will probably choose to avoid.

I would say she has managed to raise her profile and is doing exactly the kind of thing this government wants which is funding her own unpaid intern-ship via her part time work thus not having to claim the JSA benefit.

But hey, I guess we should all kow-tow and put up exploitation regardless. God knows where you and I would be if the "potential trouble causer"'s of the past had shied away from standing up for their rights because they were afraid of getting labled.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:03 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I would say she has managed to raise her profile and is doing exactly the kind of thing this government wants which is funding her own unpaid intern-ship via her part time work thus not having to claim the JSA benefit.

But hey, I guess we should all kow-tow and put up exploitation regardless. God knows where you and I would be if the "potential trouble causer"'s of the past had shied away from standing up for their rights because they were afraid of getting labled.

She hasn't done anything unpaid, she's been in receipt of benefits.