http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928

I do think it was flawed, but to say it was “Slave” labour like many have was an insult to anyone who had suffered actual slave labour.

just shows the stupidity of the DWP

her voluntary work at a museum was far more valid to a geology graduate than 2 weeks of ‘slaving’ for free at poundland

There was surprisingly a decent post made on the comments section.

Along the lines of not making people work for less than minimum wage.

If the work was of some social benefit, and not for profit (like the voluntary work in a museum), then possibly such schemes might have some merit. But forcing people to work for nothing, for profit making companies, is downright disgusting. The notion of ‘training’ is bandied about in an attempt to justify such schemes (a la apprenticeships), but stacking shelves isn’t something that requires training. It’s just a scheme to lower unemployment figures, and give companies a source of free labour. Nothing more.

I don’t know what the world is coming too when you can’t make people go and do a job, without actually paying them for it. We’re all going to hell in a handbasket. Its political correctness gone mad….. etc etc

Couple of years ago I volunteered at a national trust property of my own back.

Not sure what the welder with 20 years experience in shipyards was learning from raking the grass. But there he was at the command of the job centre. Learning nowt and getting bitter and depressed.

article does not say slave labour

Interesting if you volunteered fro as much as they send you to work for nothing they would stop your benefits

It may work for some but it is a broad brush for a complex issue and the main cause is the lack of jobs

I find it a little ironic that she states that the work experience she undertook was of no use and yet she is has now got a job at a supermarket – I wonder if she put her time at Poundland on her CV?

Basically shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this government and their policies. You would like to think that perhaps they might just have the wit run these things past a lawyer or two before trying to implment them wouldn’t you?

Same every time the **** get in. Anyone remember YTS?? In principle the same old shite.

Junkyard – Member

Interesting if you volunteered for as much as they send you to work for nothing they would stop your benefits

Yup- “No, you will not work voluntarily for nothing for a museum, that’s wrong. You’ll work compulsorarilorilarily for nothing, for a retail store that would otherwise be paying someone.” Proper gonzo nonsense.

When I was briefly unemployed I got told off for doing voluntary work as it made me “unavailable for work”. Bat****.

I thought you were able to do a certain amount of unpaid voluntary work, if you were claiming Jobseekers Allowance?

just shows the stupidity of the DWP

Apparently the DWP has stated that they aren’t paying out until all legal avenues have been exhausted, which shows the mentality of these people. I agree with Shep, above, that you have to be careful not to overstate the situation, but the policy was indefensible. How is it that a government with no real mandate has made (and attempted to make, then u-turned) so many sweeping changes? Surely there should be some mechanism within a democracy that disallows parties without a majority from going too mad in their first term.

IIRC technically you can do unlimited as long as you are not on a rota and can leave but it has always been capped at 16 hours per week unless they make you.

Most Job centres will argue you are not actively seeking employment if you “work” FT.

As long as you jump through the right hoops.

I doubt many folk [claimants or the rest of us] would actually object to genuine training that led to jobs

The current system is some distance from that description and the reality remains there are no jobs.
Punishing the unemployed for this is both expensive and pointless
The problem with “training” is that if companies can get free labour to do menial and easily learnt tasks why would they employ someone do it when they can get “free” workers under the guise of “training”.

I certainly know of a few companies who use this as their business model – ranging from third sector companies who do care to private ones maximising their profit

I thought you were able to do a certain amount of unpaid voluntary work, if you were claiming Jobseekers Allowance?

Nope. If you’re volounteering then that makes you “unavailable for work”.

Ironic isn’t it that Call Me ‘Big Society’ Dave would rather have you sat on your arse watching Jeremy Kyle, than contributing to his Grand Vision. Has anyone heard him mention it recently? I may have missed it.

And you can’t volunteer and receive Disability Living allowance either. As the DWP mentality goes that if you can volounteer then you’re well enough to work. Though charities that you’re helping out tend to be a lot more receptive and flexible with a medical condition than an employer.

The problem with “training” is that if companies can get free labour to do menial and easily learnt tasks why would they employ someone do it when they can get “free” workers under the guise of “training”.

I certainly know of a few companies who use this as their business model – ranging from third sector companies who do care to private ones maximising their profit

I actually agree with you there Junky – its been a bugbear of mine with organisations like the National Trust for years, completely skewed the market for countryside jobs.

Well one of needs to have a wash and it must be you because i am never wrong and you always are 😉

Its one of those you can see why you would think it is a good idea but in reality it tends not to be

its been a bugbear of mine with organisations like the National Trust for years, completely skewed the market for countryside jobs.

I disagree with that statement.

I grew up on NT properties and while there is a lot of voluntary work done, there’s also a lot of paid work done too. Thinking of the place my parent’s live now, there’s probably six or seven full time builders, 8-10 conservators in the house, 5 wardens (comparable job to farming there), 6 gardeners, 10-30 catering staff (depending on season), and a handful of managers. There’s probably 30-50 volunteers each day during opening hours in the summer.

So that’s 30-50 ‘jobs’, but then the whole operation wouldn’t be profitable if they were paid. And that profit pays for all their free facilities like countryside car parks (coastal ones charge) and for the upkeep of non profitable sites. And the majority of those jobs are (in the politest possible way) of as much benefit to those volunteering for them as they are the Trust. Most are retired people, some amateur historians doing research, most guiding visitors round. Most only manage a day or two a week, plenty keep going far longer than even the managers would like them too, it’s not uncommon for them to die on the job, or even more commonly soon after being told that for H&S reasons they can’t continue, it keeps some of them going. A small minority are unemployed, mostly graduates in management/tourism looking for work experience.

And compare that long list of paid jobs to the three people that work the next farm along, which is probably twice the size.

So actually I do agree, it’s massively skewed the jobs market in the countryside, it’s a huge employer.

I actually agree with you there Junky – its been a bugbear of mine with organisations like the National Trust for years, completely skewed the market for countryside jobs.

The biggest thing that has hit countryside jobs in the last century is technology.

Forestry, agriculture etc can now work acres with one machine it took days by hand.

As thisisnotaspoon said national trust/english heritage/national parks are doing a good job of employing people and keeping the countryside open to the public.

It’s just about making the poor suffer, the Tories don’t give a toss if it helps them or not, in fact they’d prefer it didn’t help them. I’m surprised they’re not made to wear a hi-viz jacket with the words ‘scrounger’ emblazoned on the back.