Next Leader of the Opposition

[Rincewind]

If workfare did not exist Tesco and the like would have to employ someone at at the very least min wages pay No holiday pay maternity paternity leave a and medical insurance.

[ousefox]

Is it any worse than previous schemes? It's usually 4 weeks at 30 hours a week of which there will be some training involved. If all the businesses involved were making mega bucks out of this deal why aren't all businesses doing it?

No probably equally as bad, and that shows we have learned nothing from them. I haven't checked recently but about mid 2013, the Work Programme had missed every target set.

 

Plenty of national companies have used it, but many have stopped after the bad press it got with Tesco and the legal case with Poundland. Have a look at the list http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=16 

[Strokes]

If workfare did not exist Tesco and the like would have to employ someone at at the very least min wages pay No holiday pay maternity paternity leave a and medical insurance.

Maybe they wouldn't as they perhaps don't need them.

[Webbo]

If workfare did not exist Tesco and the like would have to employ someone at at the very least min wages pay No holiday pay maternity paternity leave a and medical insurance.

They wouldn't they'd manage with what they've got .

 

These are long term unemployed, ie they've been unemployed for 12 months or more. If you don't want to do workfare find a proper job, if you can't find a job then this scheme will prove to employers that (a) You can get up in the morning and turn up on time and (b) you're not afraid of work.

 

Why is letting people rot on the dole considered a better option?

[Webbo]

No probably equally as bad, and that shows we have learned nothing from them. I haven't checked recently but about mid 2013, the Work Programme had missed every target set.

 

Plenty of national companies have used it, but many have stopped after the bad press it got with Tesco and the legal case with Poundland. Have a look at the list http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=16 

Boycott firms trying to help, great.

[Strokes]

No probably equally as bad, and that shows we have learned nothing from them. I haven't checked recently but about mid 2013, the Work Programme had missed every target set.

 

Plenty of national companies have used it, but many have stopped after the bad press it got with Tesco and the legal case with Poundland. Have a look at the list http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=16 

9 accounts in the people's story section.

[ousefox]

Also a real failure in my opinion is how providers have focused on larger businesses rather than SMEs where I feel both parties would benefit a lot more. Again, it's economically sensible for the providers to do this as the likelihood of larger businesses having repeat vacancies is higher which is more profitable for them.

[ousefox]

Boycott firms trying to help, great.

I'm sure some of them are trying to help, but many have taken advantage imo. I was just using that site to give you the list not because I totally agree with it 

9 accounts in the people's story section.

Did you click on the link showing all the companies?

[Webbo]

Also a real failure in my opinion is how providers have focused on larger businesses rather than SMEs where I feel both parties would benefit a lot more. Again, it's economically sensible for the providers to do this as the likelihood of larger businesses having repeat vacancies is higher which is more profitable for them.

Big businesses can spare people to supervise. If I was to take on an unemployed person for 4 weeks they'd cost me money while I had to stand watching them.

[Strokes]

I'm sure some of them are trying to help, but many have taken advantage imo. I was just using that site to give you the list not because I totally agree with it 

Did you click on the link showing all the companies?

I have, am I missing something?

[Guest]

Is it any worse than previous schemes? It's usually 4 weeks at 30 hours a week of which there will be some training involved. If all the businesses involved were making mega bucks out of this deal why aren't all businesses doing it?

Probably because they have morals or can't be bothered.

 

It's wrong. Give them proper apprenticeships - 2years+ or pay for it yourself.

[Strokes]

Big businesses can spare people to supervise. If I was to take on an unemployed person for 4 weeks they'd cost me money while I had to stand watching them.

Tell me about it, we employ apprentices (which is the same as someone with no experience) and when they spend the weeks with me my jobs run much slower as I have to show and teach them the job. There aren't many jobs that require no training.

[Webbo]

Probably because they have morals or can't be bothered.

 

It's wrong. Give them proper apprenticeships - 2years+ or pay for it yourself.

Apprenticeships already exist, nobody's stopping these people from applying one. The fact that these people have been unemployed for 12 months or more suggests that businesses don't want to employ them for whatever reason. That's why schemes like this exist.

[Guest]

They wouldn't they'd manage with what they've got .

 

These are long term unemployed, ie they've been unemployed for 12 months or more. If you don't want to do workfare find a proper job, if you can't find a job then this scheme will prove to employers that (a) You can get up in the morning and turn up on time and (b) you're not afraid of work.

 

Why is letting people rot on the dole considered a better option?

 

That isn't the better option everyone is suggesting to you.

 

The better option is that the company pays them a wage for the job and then the Taxpayer doesn't have to.

[ousefox]

Big businesses can spare people to supervise. If I was to take on an unemployed person for 4 weeks they'd cost me money while I had to stand watching them.

Obviously there are smaller companies where they will be more of a hindrance than help, but I'm certain there are many SMEs large enough to provide supervision for people on these schemes and could see a benefit from it, including the one I worked for as a summer job a few years back.

 

I have, am I missing something?

The list of around 100 national companies known to have/be using it?

[Webbo]

That isn't the better option everyone is suggesting to you.

 

The better option is that the company pays them a wage for the job and then the Taxpayer doesn't have to.

Let's assume that the small percentage that are employed on a workfare scheme at this very moment are given a permanent job right now. What happens to the other 99% of the long term unemployed? Or are you suggesting that Tescos or whoever should just give a job to everyone?

[Guest]

Let's assume that the small percentage that are employed on a workfare scheme at this very moment are given a permanent job right now. What happens to the other 99% of the long term unemployed? Or are you suggesting that Tescos or whoever should just give a job to everyone?

 

I'm suggesting that they pay the people to work for the time they are there. Not get the govt to pay them for it.

[Strokes]

Obviously there are smaller companies where they will be more of a hindrance than help, but I'm certain there are many SMEs large enough to provide supervision for people on these schemes and could see a benefit from it, including the one I worked for as a summer job a few years back.

 

The list of around 100 national companies known to have/be using it?

I approve of the scheme I hope more companies do it and help people that have been left on the scrap heap a chance. It won't hurt anyone's CV will it?

[Strokes]

https://www.facebook.com/boycottworkfare/posts/176621632486280

[Webbo]

I'm suggesting that they pay the people to work for the time they are there. Not get the govt to pay them for it.

Tesco already employs tens of thousand of people on normal terms. Some of these unemployed may have already applied for a job there and they weren't deemed suitable. This scheme shows them what is expected to get a job, it gives them a reference on their CV.

[Sir Fynwy]

Big businesses can spare people to supervise. If I was to take on an unemployed person for 4 weeks they'd cost me money while I had to stand watching them.

Don't you just slap paint on walls and make sure the wallpaper is the right way up, hardly needs much supervising?

[ousefox]

I approve of the scheme I hope more companies do it and help people that have been left on the scrap heap a chance. It won't hurt anyone's CV will it?

The scheme is expected to cost the taxpayer between £3-5bn between 2011-2016, it had missed every target it had until mid-2013 and job outcomes are no better than any previous scheme. Not something I could approve of.

[Webbo]

https://www.facebook.com/boycottworkfare/posts/176621632486280

Another victory for the haters

[Strokes]

The scheme is expected to cost the taxpayer between £3-5bn between 2011-2016, it had missed every target it had until mid-2013 and job outcomes are no better than any previous scheme. Not something I could approve of.

How has it cost us anything really, I thought it was exploitation? Who's being paid for it?

[Guest]

Tesco already employs tens of thousand of people on normal terms. Some of these unemployed may have already applied for a job there and they weren't deemed suitable. This scheme shows them what is expected to get a job, it gives them a reference on there CV.

 

Nah, it takes people off the unemployment figures and I wouldn't be surprised if they are also no longer classed as long term unemployed. 

The scheme is expected to cost the taxpayer between £3-5bn between 2011-2016, it had missed every target it had until mid-2013 and job outcomes are no better than any previous scheme. Not something I could approve of.

 

It's just a gimmick.