Leicester using workfare

[catfordfox]

My point still stands. A scheme like this would be superb, if it paid the amount of money to the people working on it it was legally and morally obliged to pay. I'm all for getting people into work and being harsh with them if they are too lazy to take a job if offered, but any work offered should be a fair days work for a fair days pay.

 

agree totally with last point here

[svensson]

agree totally with last point here

What is construed as a fair days pay et al? The minimum wage is by no means fair, it discriminates against age.

[catfordfox]

What is construed as a fair days pay et al? The minimum wage is by no means fair, it discriminates against age.

 

i'd be in favour of raising the minimum wage myself. It's barely enough to live on as it is, especially with a family. But at the very minimum, i think the club should be paying minimum wage.

[leicsmac]

What is construed as a fair days pay et al? The minimum wage is by no means fair, it discriminates against age.

 

Only up to the age of 21, and if I'm right you can only claim JSA from the age of 18 anyway?

 

You could make a case for standardising it, but that's another discussion. In any case, these schemes should pay minimum wage at the least, and it should come from the company, not taxpayers, as that defeats the entire object of trying to get people off benefits in the first place.

[Aus Fox]

i'd be in favour of raising the minimum wage myself. It's barely enough to live on as it is, especially with a family. But at the very minimum, i think the club should be paying minimum wage.

What do you think would happen if you raised the minimum wage? Everything would be less affordable as all businesses would pass on the extra cost to customers.

[Aus Fox]

JSA is not a wage. It's a safety net so that people who lost their jobs don't starve.

Can you explain to me why taxpayers should subsidise massive companies, including football clubs owned by billionaires, so they can get workers for free?

Because it gets them off the couch and into the routine of working, ending the spiral of generational benefit claiming and can help prevent people out of work falling into depression. Causing health risks this more cost to the NHS. While giving people the skills and imputes to go out and get a job.

Can you explain why taxpayers should subsidise lazy people who can work choosing not to?

[Greatness_Since_1884]

The biggest problem with long term unemployment is hysteresis and loss of skills. I don't know too much about this scheme but if that is what it's addressing then fine.

 

If LCFC are exploiting them with no intention of building transferable skills then obviously there is a problem. However, I would suspect these people aren't being used instead of contracted employees but in specially created positions to work alongside them.

[leicsmac]

Because it gets them off the couch and into the routine of working, ending the spiral of generational benefit claiming and can help prevent people out of work falling into depression. Causing health risks this more cost to the NHS. While giving people the skills and imputes to go out and get a job.

Can you explain why taxpayers should subsidise lazy people who can work choosing not to?

 

Moving goalposts well there. 

 

You didn't answer the question of why these people should be paid out of the public purse rather than the companies they are actively contributing to and making wealth for? 

 

As I have said, the scheme would be fine, if it took on people paying minimum wage out of the company coffers not the public purse and didn't drop them for a new set of workers after six months as 97% of them are. Oh hang on...those would be called 'jobs'.

[catfordfox]

The biggest problem with long term unemployment is hysteresis and loss of skills. I don't know too much about this scheme but if that is what it's addressing then fine.

 

If LCFC are exploiting them with no intention of building transferable skills then obviously there is a problem. However, I would suspect these people aren't being used instead of contracted employees but in specially created positions to work alongside them.

 

well, we don't know if that's true yet. And even if they are specially created roles (which I doubt tbh, as the costs involved in supervising what would be unnecessary jobs would be reasonably high), why not pay them then?

 

I don't want to go off topic into economic arguments about minimum wage and inflation here, save to say that's a classic line used by the people who benefit from keeping wages as low as possible.

[Aus Fox]

Anyone on here heard anything about this, or knows anyone who's had to do it? Sounds like the club have been taking people on mandatory workfare (people forced to work for free, or else will lose all benefits etc) and making them clean seats for six hours.

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2913

Not very happy about this - the amount of money the club has, if there's a job that needs doing, they should pay someone to do it, not make unemployed youngsters do it for free at pain of having their only means of survival cut off.

According to this (http://www.lsr-online.org/reports/unemployment_bulletin_june_2013/download/1/June%202013.pdf), there's a 14.4% unemployment rate in Leicester at the moment. I don't think the club should be exploiting its local community like this - the club only exists because of the fans. It should be helping local people during a recession, not taking advantage of unemployment levels and huge competition for jobs to get work done for free (subsidised by the state in effect) by using what amounts to forced labour. How is cleaning seats useful 'work experience'? You don't need experience to do that, or stack shelves in Tescos etc, its ridiculous. Even worse if theyre treating people badly, and if people are threatened with homelessness and going to food banks if they don't comply.

By using workfare, the club can cut hours for employed staff, use zero hour contracts, or get rid of staff altogether. If they can afford to pay Konchesky, Wellens etc thousands a week to sit on the bench or in the stands, they can afford to pay people at least minimum wage to clear up the ground after a game etc.

Anyway, would be interested to know what you thought about it.

Can I also ask if you know they are cleaning seats? Or was this just a guess at what they are doing? Also just to point out Wellens is no longer with us so we are not paying his wages, unless he has resigned?

[Aus Fox]

Moving goalposts well there.

You didn't answer the question of why these people should be paid out of the public purse rather than the companies they are actively contributing to and making wealth for?

As I have said, the scheme would be fine, if it took on people paying minimum wage out of the company coffers not the public purse and didn't drop them for a new set of workers after six months as 97% of them are. Oh hang on...those would be called 'jobs'.

Pretty sure I answered your question if you read my post:

Savings on NHS

Up skilling people to get jobs, thus creating tax paying citizens not dole bludgers

Ending generational unemployment

Do you want more?

Now answer my question, why should the tax payer subsidise people who are able to work but chose not to?

[catfordfox]

Can I also ask if you know they are cleaning seats? Or was this just a guess at what they are doing? Also just to point out Wellens is no longer with us so we are not paying his wages, unless he has resigned?

ah didnt realise wellens had gone, my mistake. Sure you got the point i was making.

 

if you read the link that i put up, there's a quote about it there:

 

'“Apparently at leicester fc grounds,there is at least one person with special needs on a MWP, and i am told they are treated badly, only being given a 30 Min lunch break. The have also reported being spoken to derisorily by the supervisor at LCFC stadium, and being forced to wipe down chairs for six hours one day-clearly punitive & not about gaining experience or improving skills.â€

[kylestyle06]

ah didnt realise wellens had gone, my mistake. Sure you got the point i was making.

 

if you read the link that i put up, there's a quote about it there:

 

'“Apparently at leicester fc grounds,there is at least one person with special needs on a MWP, and i am told they are treated badly, only being given a 30 Min lunch break. The have also reported being spoken to derisorily by the supervisor at LCFC stadium, and being forced to wipe down chairs for six hours one day-clearly punitive & not about gaining experience or improving skills.â€

 

 

I only get a 30 min break and have done for over 8 years

[catfordfox]

Now answer my question, why should the tax payer subsidise people who are able to work but chose not to?

 

Look at the stats above - 1 vacancy for every 5 people unemployed. Personally i don't that everytime there's a recession we should just let the people made redundant because of a tanking economy starve. 14.4% of people in Leicester are unemployed. You might choose to believe every single one of them are deliberately choosing not to get a job, but I don't.

 

Again, it comes down to this - if there is a job that needs doing, the club should pay someone a proper wage to do it.

[Aus Fox]

ah didnt realise wellens had gone, my mistake. Sure you got the point i was making.

if you read the link that i put up, there's a quote about it there:

'“Apparently at leicester fc grounds,there is at least one person with special needs on a MWP, and i am told they are treated badly, only being given a 30 Min lunch break. The have also reported being spoken to derisorily by the supervisor at LCFC stadium, and being forced to wipe down chairs for six hours one day-clearly punitive & not about gaining experience or improving skills.â€

So apparently big word so not a fact, there is at least one person who was only given a 30 minute lunch break, I work full time and have since I was 16 and some days I don't get a lunch break at all in a 12 hour day so 30 mins in a 6 hour day would be great.

The got spoken to derisorilly, define this? They were asked to do some work and didn't like it,? No one forced them they could have left at Amy point, unless your accusing of false imprisonment the just wouldn't get paid if they left, just like every member of the working public.

[MrSpaM]

Actually having to work for your money

Who'd have thunk it!

[catfordfox]

I only get a 30 min break and have done for over 8 years

 

you're getting paid though, right?

[kylestyle06]

Look at the stats above - 1 vacancy for every 5 people unemployed. Personally i don't that everytime there's a recession we should just let the people made redundant because of a tanking economy starve. 14.4% of people in Leicester are unemployed. You might choose to believe every single one of them are deliberately choosing not to get a job, but I don't.

 

Again, it comes down to this - if there is a job that needs doing, the club should pay someone a proper wage to do it.

 

Look I see what you're getting at you think the club should pay - but if it means said person is not sitting on their arse and is a way of getting them back into work then so be it.

 

And I would say that 90% of unemployed people are not trying hard enough to find work.  They don't want it that bad that they will make sure they spend 9-5 every day hunting for work and showing that they are keen and available as soon as possible. I see it day in day out of lazy people who don't want to work and don't turn up to work.

 

There is work out there for people if they look slightly hard enough. Sitting on your backside on your laptop applying for jobs will not get you a job. That is where you are outnumbered and the guy with the better CV wins. Going into companies, and regually keeping in contact with agencies is what gets you a job.

[leicsmac]

Pretty sure I answered your question if you read my post:

Savings on NHS

Up skilling people to get jobs, thus creating tax paying citizens not dole bludgers

Ending generational unemployment

Do you want more?

Now answer my question, why should the tax payer subsidise people who are able to work but chose not to?

 

Those are wholesale reasons for people to get into work and paid training schemes, not reasons for Government money rather than money from the companies involved to be spent on it.

 

As for your question, I have said already that they shouldn't. They should be offered jobs with a fair wage and hours or training courses that lead directly to jobs, and if they refuse them then they should not receive benefits.

[Aus Fox]

you're getting paid though, right?[/quote

These people are getting paid too, right?

[hairy]

When I was unemployed I would have been more than happy to do this. It gives you a purpose and makes you feel you are contributing.

[catfordfox]

So apparently big word so not a fact, there is at least one person who was only given a 30 minute lunch break, I work full time and have since I was 16 and some days I don't get a lunch break at all in a 12 hour day so 30 mins in a 6 hour day would be great.

The got spoken to derisorilly, define this? They were asked to do some work and didn't like it,? No one forced them they could have left at Amy point, unless your accusing of false imprisonment the just wouldn't get paid if they left, just like every member of the working public.

 

you are aware there's been a recession which is a consequence of a global financial crisis, and that the economy's just bumbling along at the bottom, right? You realise that unemployment is at 2.5m in the UK, and that loads more people are working part time and far fewer hours than they used to? That unemployment is 5% higher today in Leicester than it was before the crisis?

 

If they'd left at any point, they would have had the (very small amount of) money that the state provides as a safety net removed. The government is basically saying to people 'if you don't work for private companies for free, you will not be able to eat or pay rent'. The net effect of that is that lowers wages for everyone.

 

Its the same thing as the govt having to pay housing benefit to thousands of people in work, because their employers refuse to pay them enough to live on. I don't think that a football club, which shoud be at the heart of the local community, should be taking part in schemes like workfare - especially not one with so much money available.

[leicsmac]

Look I see what you're getting at you think the club should pay - but if it means said person is not sitting on their arse and is a way of getting them back into work then so be it.

 

And I would say that 90% of unemployed people are not trying hard enough to find work.  They don't want it that bad that they will make sure they spend 9-5 every day hunting for work and showing that they are keen and available as soon as possible. I see it day in day out of lazy people who don't want to work and don't turn up to work.

 

There is work out there for people if they look slightly hard enough. Sitting on your backside on your laptop applying for jobs will not get you a job. That is where you are outnumbered and the guy with the better CV wins. Going into companies, and regually keeping in contact with agencies is what gets you a job.

 

I disagree. If a company wants people to do jobs that badly, then contract with the Government to be the liason and offer the work, but don't use Government money to pay them. 

 

Going into companies only works if you have the money to travel and you have a lot of eligible businesses close by. Most companies will politely say thank you, take your CV and then stick it in the shredder after you've left (personal experience here). Applying via the Internet doesn't have a high success rate either but it allows for more applications in a shorter time. Agencies are a good idea though, quite often a temp job with a company through them can lead to a permanent one.

[kylestyle06]

I disagree. If a company wants people to do jobs that badly, then contract with the Government to be the liason and offer the work, but don't use Government money to pay them. 

 

Going into companies only works if you have the money to travel and you have a lot of eligible businesses close by. Most companies will politely say thank you, take your CV and then stick it in the shredder after you've left (personal experience here). Applying via the Internet doesn't have a high success rate either but it allows for more applications in a shorter time. Agencies are a good idea though, quite often a temp job with a company through them can lead to a permanent one.

 

If you can't physically spend one of your unemployed life registering with all the agencies in town then you have no hope of finding work. Unless you are applying for a role you have the relevant skills and qualifications then applying to all these jobs online is a waste of time, when the jobseeker could be registering with an agency.

 

As said it's as easy as going to an agency, saying you'll do ANYTHING, then when they call you at 6am you get off your arse, go to work, prove yourself and you've then earned yourself that place.

[MrSpaM]

you're getting paid though, right?

So are these people, paid in benefits. At least they are actively doing something rather than sat on their arse's watching Jeremy Kyle or playing on the xbox. It honestly doesn't matter if they are getting paid less than minimum wage. Doing something with your life is better than nothing at all.

 

It's work experience, it's education. What are you going to start demanding next, that school kids should get paid minimum wage to go to school every day?