Results 1 to 16 of 16
-
23rd Feb 2012, 11:35 AM #1
Unpaid Work Experience for the Unemployed
Should the unemployed take unpaid work experience?
A couple of quotes from The Guardian:
Tens of thousands of unemployed people have been made to work without pay under threat of having their benefits removed for at least 13 weeks, according to the latest government figures.
The first set of statistics on the government's mandatory work activity (MWA) programme reveals that from when the scheme started in May 2011 until November, 24,010 jobseekers were referred to work for four weeks unpaid for 30 hours a week.
Under the scheme – the first of its kind in the UK – jobcentre managers have the power to make unemployed people do a month's work experience at charities, government offices or high-street chains if they feel claimants "fail to demonstrate the focus and discipline necessary to seek out, secure and retain employment opportunities". If they do not take part, claimants have their benefits removed for 13 weeks. A second failure to take part means benefits are removed for six months.
In a separate scheme, managers can also ask jobseekers to take up unpaid work experience (WE) for eight weeks. However, under this programme, people can refuse to do the work or pull out within the first week without having benefits docked. Figures for the programme reveal that 34,200 jobseekers undertook such placements from January until November 2011.
There has been exponential growth in the number of people being sent on mandatory "workfare" placements since they were introduced in May. In the three months from September referrals doubled, and by November, the last month for which figures were released, there were more people being sent to mandatory placements (8,100) than starting a WE placement (6,600) throughout the whole of the UK.Critics of the government's work experience scheme are "job snobs", the employment minister has said.
Chris Grayling defended the project after a Tesco store was forced to close on Saturday when it was invaded by protesters angered by a job advert seeking permanent workers in exchange for expenses and jobseeker's allowance.
Unpaid 'work experience' is a depressing solution to youth unemployment
Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Grayling said that 20,000 young people have already moved off benefits after finding full-time jobs after taking up work experience organised by jobcentres.
He said the Government hopes find a further 100,000 more of these placement over the coming year.
"Short term work experience placements lasting a few weeks are of immense value to young people looking to get a foothold on the job ladder," Mr Grayling writes.
"The critics are job snobs. The Guardian newspaper publishes stories attacking big retailers for offering short-term unpaid work experience placements for young people.
"But that same Guardian newspaper advertises on its website - yes, you guessed it - short-term unpaid work experience placements for young people.
"The BBC's Newsnight joined in the attack on big retailers offering unpaid work experience. And on the BBC website? Yes, you guessed it again – an offer of unpaid work experience placements. It's time we put an end to this hypocrisy."
So what's the reality behind this? Are the supermarkets using the unemployed as a free labour force? If you are unemployed and you're sent on a work experience scheme, does it make it easier for you to get a job? Is it fair to get someone to work without a monetary wage?Pity. I have no understanding of the word. It is not registered in my vocabulary bank. EXTERMINATE!
-
23rd Feb 2012, 11:46 AM #2
Some short term internships are worthwhile (If I found myself out of work in the near future I'd certainly think about a stint at the BBC) but working for £50 a week or whatever JSA is these days in a supermarket or McDonalds? Surely that would undermine the improvement in low paid workers conditions which have come in with the creation of the national minimum wage (which interestingly is now higher than the hourly rate I was on during the six month period I worked for a local supermarket nearly 10 years ago).
-
23rd Feb 2012, 12:15 PM #3
People are arguing the rights and wrongs of the principle of unpaid work for the unemployed rather than accepting that it sounds good on paper and could be made good in reality. With proper regulation it can give unemployed people experience, skills and routine in their lives. Without proper regulation it creates free labour for chains desperate to cut costs and at the end of their placement the workers are chucked out and replaced with another crop of freebie newbs.
The idea is nothing new - it's been done for decades under one name or another - but either it needs to be a form of internship which gives the unemployed something of value or an unpaid placement which has a reasonable chance of permanent employment at the end of it.
And - crucially - it shouldn't be full time or they won't have time to actually look for a proper job and the placement keeps them on benefits longer.Dennis, Francois, Melba and Smasher are competing to see who can wine and dine Lola Whitecastle and win the contract to write her memoirs. Can Dennis learn how to be charming? Can Francois concentrate on anything else when food is on the table? Will Smasher keep his temper under control?
If only the 28th century didn't keep popping up to get in Dennis's way...
#dammitbrent
The eleventh annual Brenty Four serial is another Planet Skaro exclusive. A new episode each day until Christmas in the Brenty Four-um.
-
23rd Feb 2012, 12:22 PM #4
I've no idea what the solution is. Like so many things in life, it has good intentions but people abuse it and find a way to stop it working.
If you have someone who is complacently aclimatised to a life on benefits and not going for interviews then making him work for free might incline him to get a paid job. But then are the supermarkets etc. going to hire when they can get workers for free? Also I can imagine how annoyed I'd be if I was looking for work and I couldn't fit in interviews around my unpaid job.
All I would say is, perhaps they should be doing a better job of establishing that people really arn't bothering to look for jobs before they make them do unpaid work. When I was unemployed a few years ago they did nothing to help me find a job or motivate me to look for one. "Checking in the paper? On-Line?" they asked, and that was that. Perhaps if the job centre staff asked you to prove you had applied for a certain number of jobs, and if you hadn't suggested some jobs for you to apply for, and only if you hadn't applied for these available jobs did they pack you off to Tesco's unpaid, it would be better. Sort of "Well, if you don't want THIS, then I'll find you something myself" sort of thing.
Also you should have to turn up to the job centre in the outfit you have ready for an interview - and if it's jeans and T-Shirt and you haven't bothered to get an attire/affect a standard of appearance that will stand you ANY chance of getting the job, when you should fail the test immediately. I wouldn't have given half the people I saw at the job centre a position just by looking at them.
Si.
-
23rd Feb 2012, 1:10 PM #5
The trouble is these people don't need work experience, they need work. If you're going to make them do a crappy job anyway, why not pay them at least minimum wage for it?
-
23rd Feb 2012, 4:39 PM #6
-
23rd Feb 2012, 7:15 PM #7Under the scheme – the first of its kind in the UK – jobcentre managers have the power to make unemployed people do a month's work experience at charities, government offices or high-street chains if they feel claimants "fail to demonstrate the focus and discipline necessary to seek out, secure and retain employment opportunities". If they do not take part, claimants have their benefits removed for 13 weeks. A second failure to take part means benefits are removed for six months.
People are arguing the rights and wrongs of the principle of unpaid work for the unemployed rather than accepting that it sounds good on paper and could be made good in reality. With proper regulation it can give unemployed people experience, skills and routine in their lives. Without proper regulation it creates free labour for chains desperate to cut costs and at the end of their placement the workers are chucked out and replaced with another crop of freebie newbs.
All I would say is, perhaps they should be doing a better job of establishing that people really arn't bothering to look for jobs before they make them do unpaid work. When I was unemployed a few years ago they did nothing to help me find a job or motivate me to look for one. "Checking in the paper? On-Line?" they asked, and that was that. Perhaps if the job centre staff asked you to prove you had applied for a certain number of jobs, and if you hadn't suggested some jobs for you to apply for, and only if you hadn't applied for these available jobs did they pack you off to Tesco's unpaid, it would be better. Sort of "Well, if you don't want THIS, then I'll find you something myself" sort of thing.
The trouble is these people don't need work experience, they need work. If you're going to make them do a crappy job anyway, why not pay them at least minimum wage for it?Last edited by Paul Clement; 23rd Feb 2012 at 7:33 PM.
-
24th Feb 2012, 8:57 AM #8
Of course they do. So if you're going to send them off on a job placement to get those skills, why exactly can't they be paid for it? Or, to put it another way, why is unpaid 'work experience' better than paid experience at work?
What's the point of sending someone for job after job if they don't have the slightest chance of getting the job.
All that does is demotivate them further.
If you identify the skills need that the person has and work on that first, you then raise their prospects of successfully obtaining a job and being able to keep it once they find it.
-
25th Feb 2012, 4:06 PM #9
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Loughton
- Posts
- 11,583
I did learn how to be a librarian on one of these scemes back in 19 hundred and Frozen-to-death, but i got something out of it. I knew someone who was thrown onto New Deal a few years ago, and they spent one day a week looking through the local newspapers and such, and the rest of the week vegitating in the same room. That was, until the providers moved a couple of doors down. They announced, "Who wants to do a bit of painting in the new office?" As something to do, several people put their hands up simply because they wanted something to do. Then they came back and said where's our placements? and the firm said that the painting was their placements! (And i had that confirmed by someone I met who worked there.)
So I agree that in an ideal world this sort of thing should at least put a relevant line on someone's CV. I have come across enough evidence though, to show that there are firms who find it easier to bung someone in a charity shop for six weeks than to find them something more suitable. And I've done a couple of favours for local charity shops andknow from first-hand experience that by the same token, the shops can get lumbered with people who they find undesirable - including a sex maniac and a woman who does one hour then decides that's that for the next three weeks and goes off to have her eyebrows plucked, and who tells the deputy manager what to do on the grounds that she's been there longer.
The problem with getting people to work for charities is that they are charities, and they need all the money they can get for the charity, so they need all the help they can get, voluntary or otherwise; and they need to only pay certain management posts. The companies that send them there have in the past been paid for results, so more unscrupulous ones don't seem to care where they end up as long as they get paid. Looking at it from HM Government's point of view, how much tax dollar can they afford to spend to get the matter sorted, even though they have a moral if not legal right to have a go?
-
25th Feb 2012, 4:16 PM #10Of course they do. So if you're going to send them off on a job placement to get those skills, why exactly can't they be paid for it? Or, to put it another way, why is unpaid 'work experience' better than paid experience at work?
Despite the claims made about the scheme, a tiny percentage of people on it actually get offered any kind of work at the end, because the big companies using them know there's a good source of free workers, so why fill up spaces with people they have to pay?
And forcing them to go and do unpaid work with minimal chance of getting a job at the end, and which leaves them no time to actually go and look for paid work, or lose their benefits is motivating?
What I disagree with is the idea that all that somehow makes it acceptable to force someone into unpaid labour. They'll get the experience at the skills doing the job and getting paid for it, and they'll be more motivated because they are getting paid.
-
25th Feb 2012, 4:21 PM #11The companies that send them there have in the past been paid for results, so more unscrupulous ones don't seem to care where they end up as long as they get paid. Looking at it from HM Government's point of view, how much tax dollar can they afford to spend to get the matter sorted, even though they have a moral if not legal right to have a go?
-
25th Feb 2012, 4:44 PM #12
From a personal perspective, one of the biggest problems I've come across with the government's aim of tackling youth unemployment is that they vastly underestimate the problems that are encountered.
There are a lot of youngsters coming into the Jobcentre who are second of sometimes third generation benefit claimants. The work ethic isn't always there for them in the first place, with some having had no encouragement to look for work from their families. Some of the families are actually encouraging them not to find work.
The other issue that comes up is a poor standard of education. A lot of young customers are coming into the Jobcentre with little or no qualifications, poor literacy and numeracy skills and no idea how to create a CV. It's quite a regular occurrence to come across an 18 or 19 year old who stopped attending school when they were 13 or 14 (in some cases younger).
When you add to that the large number of youngsters who are claiming benefit who live in foyers or other sheltered housing projects because of difficulties they've had at home, you have customers coming in with a lot of personal baggage that needs addressing as well as the need to help them find work.
-
27th Feb 2012, 8:09 AM #13
Of course it's not voluntary!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ople-need-jobs
Look, I'd love to have an employee, but I can't afford to pay one. Perhaps I should ring someone in the Government and have them send me someone for free? I'm sure that will be fine with all the taxpayers, and I'm sure my person could use the valuable experience to get a job elsewhere! Then, if anyone complains, a rich Tory could call them "snobs"!Why build an engine when you have a perfectly good whale?
-
27th Feb 2012, 9:31 AM #14
As would altering the benefits system to allow those who find temporary short-term contracts to have their benefits suspended or reduced rather than stopped outright such that they have to make a new claim once they're out of work again 2 or 3 months later. Are we really saying a system where we make people work unpaid for a while is necessary because the sheer level of bureaucratic red tape involved in giving them those benefits makes it much harder to give them paid work on a short term basis and guarantee them benefits at the end of that contract period?
That's not true, the percentage of customers going into work within 3 months of being on the work placement is quite high. It does not necessarily have to be with the company they were on placement with, there experience has often led them to other jobs.
They don't lose their benefits for not going on the scheme.
Let's face it, there are a lot of people applying for jobs who are already employed full time. They have the time to look for alternative employment, so I'm sure people on the scheme for a few weeks would still be able to manage.
If they apply for a job and are successful in getting an interview, they would be excused from the placement to attend.
Except they are not forced into it. Entering on to the scheme is completely voluntary.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...spectus-v2.pdf
Please note the use of the word 'mandatory' in the table describing the referrals of jobcentre customers. The only use of the word 'voluntary' occurs with 'or mandatory depending on circumstances' in one case.
-
27th Feb 2012, 7:20 PM #15
I would hazard a guess that the adviser who forced that individual into attending the work experience is now in a great deal of trouble. The work experience scheme is set up as being voluntary and that should never have happened. Not everyone working in the Jobcentre does things the way they should be done, I certainly see things day in day out that make me frustrated with the way some of my colleagues treat the unemployed. The fact is, the customer in that article shouldn't have been made to go, and very probably didn't need to go on a work experience. It should be all about working with the customer as an individual. Some customers would benefit from certain forms of help and others would benefit from others. There are also customers who wouldn't benefit from much the Jobcentre has to offer because they have the skills and expertise to undertake their chosen profession but haven't found the position yet. That does raise the question of how long you leave things as they are though.
-
27th Feb 2012, 7:50 PM #16As would altering the benefits system to allow those who find temporary short-term contracts to have their benefits suspended or reduced rather than stopped outright such that they have to make a new claim once they're out of work again 2 or 3 months later. Are we really saying a system where we make people work unpaid for a while is necessary because the sheer level of bureaucratic red tape involved in giving them those benefits makes it much harder to give them paid work on a short term basis and guarantee them benefits at the end of that contract period?
But what of someone like me? I was out of work for nine months back in 2003-2004. I'm a biochemist. A period of unpaid work in a retail chain is not going to help me in any way, shape or form.
A number of recent newspaper articles suggest otherwise.
I have heard a number of cases where people have not been so excused, and where individuals have been compelled to attend job centre workshops rather than attend interviews. Maybe the system says that should not happen, but it certainly does.
This archived document from 2010 suggests otherwise:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...spectus-v2.pdf
Please note the use of the word 'mandatory' in the table describing the referrals of jobcentre customers. The only use of the word 'voluntary' occurs with 'or mandatory depending on circumstances' in one case.
Similar Threads
-
Doctor Who Experience - Cardiff - now with docu-drama TARDIS console
By Ian Lethbridge-Stewart in forum Adventures In Time and SpaceReplies: 15Last Post: 31st Aug 2013, 3:05 PM -
Authentic viewing experience?
By shada pavlova in forum Adventures In Time and SpaceReplies: 4Last Post: 3rd Jan 2013, 6:05 PM -
Longleat-style 50th anniversary exhibition in 2013/ The Doctor Who Experience
By Dr Judson in forum Adventures In Time and SpaceReplies: 32Last Post: 4th Apr 2011, 7:28 PM -
Come on Ace - we’ve got work to do!
By Pip Madeley in forum Adventures In Time and SpaceReplies: 12Last Post: 16th Dec 2009, 11:49 AM -
FAO:Doncaster Unemployed Dr Who Fans
By Dino in forum General ForumReplies: 10Last Post: 29th Sep 2008, 1:32 PM
PSAudios 6.1. Bless You Doctor Who
[/URL] (Click for large version) Doctor Who A thrilling two-part adventure starring Brendan Jones & Paul Monk & Paul Monk Bless You,...
23rd Nov 2020, 3:02 PM