[Closed] "Unpaid" work like stacking shelves and cleaning floors is slave labour...

Today's BH-Suck-Pool is brought to you by Percy Pig and Pals.

🙂

In modern terms, guess it is, especially as we have a minium wage, if getting at least that minium wage then no.

http://www.youthfightforjobs.com/

[i]Although, not according to Sir Stuart Rose (ex head of M&S) who started his working life, er, stacking shelves and cleaning floors... [/i]

You missed the bit at the end of that quote which was 'for one day'.

Although, not according to Sir Stuart Rose (ex head of M&S) who started his working life, er, stacking shelves and cleaning floors...

Did he do it for free?

Probably not, but then who will be doing that? (Hint: "Unpaid")...

TBH the whole thing keeps me up at night. I finish my placement next month, and I'm back to college, but my employer has said I'm the last placement they'll do, they can't afford to do more. My boss has said he'd have me back, but in my final interview with the MD she said it's unlikely they'd be recruiting.

Part of my job is doing my boss' emails and no word of a lie I see maybe 4-5 cv (we're not advertising) coming every day, and I'm told to just delete them. There was a warehouse job here a couple of months back, they must have had 200+ applications, and he was just deleting everyone straight from school, it was depressing.

I've got a year more of college, and I can see myself stacking shelves for free at the end of it TBH.

depressing.

unpaid work you are compelled to do is like slave labour it is in fact prohibited by the same international law and is correctly called forced labour . The terms and conditions of the current " work fare " are a tad more lax though . Still wrong in principle though every free workfare placement is one less "real job" so one more jobseeker not being placed ... If it can lead to a real job it should start as one.

still not too sure on this one, guess it depends on the details. Possibility of getting your foot in the door somewhere, doing a good job getting noticed etc.

Alternativley some big companies get free labour and that's one less job available to job seekers.

I'm very dubious at the moment tho and it currently sounds like slave/forced labour and freebies for big companies.

you are being disingenuous woppit

camerons employment tsar has been breaking her balls to get people back to work through schemes like this- shes only taking a few tens of mill a year of government money to get that 9% success rate
with the torys steering us back into new highs of unemployment this has to be a good thing

i say make them work for free, feed them bread and water and keep them in the coal cellar

I'd like to see some stats on what percentage of placements lead to full time positions. I reckon I could hazard a good guess.

Whats happening is that we as taxpayers are now underwriting the profits of companies like Tesco by supplying them with unpaid staff.

...and that taxpayers' money is actually reducing the chances of people finding work. With a steady stream of unpaid labour available why pay for workers? Shoudn't 'work experience' cover the whole experience of working? As in getting paid a wage and having a secure job?

lazy buggers need to work to prove their worth. I would hire someone who showed initiative and got off thier arse to prove themselves. I wouldnt hire the ****less excuse makers.
simple.

Technically Slaves weren't on benefits,

Dunno about anyone else, but if I was stacking shelves for heehaw. I'd be liberating those shelves at the same time.

If work needs done, it should be paid at atleast minimum wages.

Who's a lazy bugger? Someone who won't be used as scapegoat cheap labour? Even Ken Clark's prison work scheme pays a better wage than this so-called 'work experience'.

Wahaaaaaaaaay! Its gone - somewhat inevitably - all Daily Mail!!!!

If you think that the close to 3 million unemployed out there are all ****less excuse makers, then i think you may want to re-familierise yourself with the real world. Trying to find a job it the moment is a soul-destroying, thankless trail of rejection after rejection.

How going to work unpaid in Poundland for a few weeks changes this is utterly beyond me

The company I worked for during summers started taking in unpaid "work experience" people on this scheme. They would take someone for a few weeks at a time then get rid of them and bring more people in they didn't have to pay.

It meant they could cut the employed staff like me who had been working really hard at the job over four summers. You know....people honestly grafting for money. I put up with verbal abuse and pans being thrown at me for four summers and the other university holidays knowing that I'd always have a job there when I got back from uni.

I ended up unemployed because of this. Genius ****ing idea, the scheme is only increasing unemployment.

Nothing wrong with getting people to work for their benefits in principle but I can see how that might mean say Tesco need to hire less people into proper jobs. Certainly nothing wrong with showing people that it's good to get out of your bed in the morning.....as above though, lot of unemployed at the moment are anything but ****less.

Slave labour it is not.....

Slave labour it is not.....

Yes it ****ing is, it's directly undermining those of us who genuinely try to work hard to earn money.

If it's unpaid it should be done with nationalized services such as the NHS, Fire Service or Military. Not private ****ing companies.

And it may well fall foul of this...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/slavery_servitude_and_forced_or_compulsory_labour/

If you think that the close to 3 million unemployed out there are all ****less excuse makers, then i think you may want to re-familierise yourself with the real world.

Where did I speak for every unemployed person?
I mentioned lazy ****less people but you presumed I meant [u]everyone[/u]?
I've been in the unemployed position, and found it tough, I also had to work my way back up quite a few rungs on the ladder to get to where I had previously been.
I didn't complain or make excuses.
And i've never bought tha Daily Mail.

From what I can tell/have seen, the people undertaking these new roles and generally the type that need weeks of training to learn how to stack a shelf, as theyve had little or no experience of anything like work before.
I do tend to agree that it should be a public service position however.

What really pisses me off is listening to Cameron et al banging on about job snobbery when there were plenty of people doing shit jobs who have now had their hours eaten into or been made unemployed by this scheme.

Don't Tesco and the like only take these people on for a couple of weeks at a time. Given they will probably need to be trained or supervised they won't take one full time employees job.

There are obviously some flaws but one of the reasons Tesco is prepared to make the effort is the lack of cost and then the benefit to them. If they actually had to pay people minimum wage then they would get full time staff rather than lots of people for a short period of time as it would be more cost effective.

One of the biggest barriers to getting work is never having had a job before or being long term unemployed. This could go someway to alleviating that problem. However, many big names are pulling out due to the negative press/left wing propoganda they are receiving.

Incidentally I did work experience at school, was that slave labour or part of my education?

They are also getting paid through benefits so it's hardly like they are working for free is it.

Now They are indoctrinating our children...

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/become_a_slave_at_fishbourne_roman_palace_1_3560396

I was out of work for 20 months until finding a job last April. 1000+ applications made. 2 temporary jobs (one of a week one of 3 weeks) taken which were a pain in the arse as it screwed up my benefits claims needing lots of work putting in to get sorted afterwards. I took them 1. in the hope they might be a foot in the door (they weren't), 2. To have something to put on my CV as the ever widening gap from last employment was worrying, 3. to get me out of the house.

DON'T think everyone claiming "dole" is a work shy fop. There are a LOT but there are also a LOT of people desperate for work. I suspect the ones who want work will be the majority of the ones being "exploited" by this work fare scheme and the dossers will carry on as per usual.

It's by no means slavery but it is not (IMHO) doing anything to address the job shortage in this country.

Still that woman from A4e decided it was good enough to pay herself £8M+ in dividends. Thanks god its only the jobless that rip this country off.

If they actually had to pay people minimum wage then they would get full time staff rather than lots of people for a short period of time

Previous schemes such as YOP, YTS, and the Community Programme (which actually paid a poor wage) failed. They were expensive to run, and didn't result in many sucessful outcomes.

If they actually had to pay people minimum wage then they would get full time staff rather than lots of people for a short period of time
kind of the point no? ie real jobs for people not a load of free work from interchangeable "workers" from the currently very large unemployed pool.

No, they are trying to tackle the more difficult group of long term unemployed and never been employed. At least that's what they should be doing. In all likely hood they are probably forcing people to work who have been made redundant and were actively lookg for a job anyway.

There is a good idea in there, I'm just sceptical as to whether the government could execute it.

ohnohesback - Member
Previous schemes such as YOP, YTS, and the Community Programme (which actually paid a poor wage) failed. They were expensive to run, and didn't result in many sucessful outcomes.

Previous failure is not a reason to give up.

ohnohesback - Member
Previous schemes such as YOP, YTS, and the Community Programme (which actually paid a poor wage) failed. They were expensive to run, and didn't result in many sucessful outcomes.

And the current one is no more successful than doing nowt.

jonba so keep the scheme but only push it on the no-hopers? I can see some merit in that, but unfortunately still reducing the amount of "proper" jobs.

But an even better reason not to repeat the error on a grander and more expensive scale.

I echo jonba's comments. In principle there may be some merit to the idea if it provides someone who's never worked with a bit of structure and get's them used to working etc. From an employers viewpoint temps can be a pain to bring into an organisation as they need training before they are fully contributing etc. The work placement people are unlikely to to be taking full time jobs in most organisations.

So on the plus side it may give some people some genuine work experience and at least something to put on their CV.

The downside is that if you need this sort of support you're probably already way down the list of most employers most wanted listed (not necessarily through any fault of the individual), so it's not really going to make any difference.

if we were in a full employment situation but there were people who weren't suitable for work it might help some of them actually get into work and hold a job down but we're not in that situation.

The big elephant in the room the politicians don't want to acknowledge is that there aren't enough jobs for those with the right skills and attitude and there are still a significant minority who don't have the right skills and attitude. So for these people (either category) the question is should we expect them to work for their benefits if they are able? Not simple though as we have to ensure any work carried out is additional to that which the economy would have otherwise taken care of. Then of course you have the moral dilemma as to whether it's right to make people work for their benefits. I still think the welfare state is based upon a model that is forty to fifty years old and hasn't moved in line with the social expectations of a modern society.

If anyone is interested in looking at the workfare system in more details, this is a good book:

[url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=brECO9gNTEcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ]Workfare States by Jamie Peck[/url]

This scheme is the sort of thing pioneered in the US in the 1990s. It had the same problems then as the new one does.

When there are so many people out of work who actually want to work, focusing on the long time entrenched unemployed is just a waste of money and resources.

It would be much more productive to channel those resources into helping those who want to work as a priority, It just wouldn't give politicians the opportunity to blame victims and create hatred that shifts focus from the real problems.

Creating a permanent workfare underclass, trapped in workfare because workfare displaces the 'leg-up out of poverty' jobs that they might have been able to take. How would that be an improvement on the structural unemployment that the UK has suffered for the past thirty years or more?

I'd take issue on the YOP / YTS claims above. It was through this that I got a foot in the door into full time employment. It also worked for a good number of friends of mine.

There would have been nowhere near as much fuss about this if the work people were made to do was socially useful/beneficial/not for profit.

And the whole A4E thing is an absolute disgrace, one the Sun etc seem strangely quiet on, given that they are effectively a publicly funded quango - except their boss and shareholders take millions and millions in dividends while not getting people back into work and fraudulently claiming they are.

I think there would be a fuss whatever the sort of 'work' that was 'offered'. Underlying this is a nasty assumption that others are somehow a form of state property, to be made to do displacement activities for the benefit of the self-righteous classes. Just bear in mind that in an economy constantly outsourcing, downsizing, commoditising, automating, and otherwise reducing the work available that you may be joining that underclass sooner rather than later...

Would you do your present job for your basic benefit? If not, why do you expect others to do so?

How many of you can't get it into your heads that this has genuinely taken jobs off people who were being paid for it (especially in the low skilled hotel industry where 1 day of training suffices or the "slaves" have experience in that sector already).

If you want to have a work experience scheme, keep it in the public sector and have them do community service work. Knowing how expensive mountain biking is those of you supporting this scheme are probably 40 year old tosspots who work in the city.

And going back to my time of recent unemployment. I asked many times if there was any sort of retraining that I could get (FLT Driver or such, I just wanted to get a job) but there was nothing because I wasn't at the correct time in unemployment. To be contrasted with a cycling friend who was unemployed, looking for some sort of work in the last 6 months before he reached 65 and was sent for retraining. Totally pointless. Why couldn't we have swapped? Bacause no one is allowed to use initiative or common sense. The process must be followed to the letter.

I asked many times if there was any sort of retraining that I could get (FLT Driver or such, I just wanted to get a job) but there was nothing because I wasn't at the correct time in unemployment.

Exactly what I meant by focusing resources on those that want to work.

I think there would be a fuss whatever the sort of 'work' that was 'offered'. Underlying this is a nasty assumption that others are somehow a form of state property, to be made to do displacement activities for the benefit of the self-rightoues classes. Just bear in mind that in an economy constantly outsourcing, downsizing, commoditising, automating, and otherwise reducing the work available that you may be joining that underclass sooner rather than later...

Would you do your present job for your basic benefit? If not, why do you expect others to do so?

I'm still not sure I would agree with it, but it would have been a lot more palatable to many people I think.

And yes, in my regular job working for a charity I have taken a big cut in hours, pay has been frozen for several years, we are expected to do work we don't get paid for, using volunteers more - so yeah I will soon be joining the underclass probably. What do you suggest? 🙂

Rioting.

What do you suggest?

@ 5:41

[img] [/img]

It does depend a lot on the sort of work you're doing and how much value you gain from it. Shelf stacking experience is probably of very low value although still might be enough to separate you from the crowd of school leavers that have never worked. Personally I started of on an NVQ placement, I basically got £10 a week on top of income support for 37.5 hours work but the experience and training was very valuable and they gave me a job at the end of it which was my foot in the door. God knows what I'd be doing now if I didn't have that chance because someone decided I was being exploited.

No jobs, YTS 2.0, scrap the EMA and ramp up university fees.

Keep the cannon fodder down old boy!!

[On the subject of EMA, if young people can be paid to stack shelves, why not to help some remain in education?]

if young people can be paid to stack shelves, why not to help some remain in education?

Because if they did that, then blood-sucking parasites like A4e wouldn't have the chance to skim off hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money for doing **** all!

The unemployed are presently a corporate cash cow. Young adults trying to get an education aren't. Depresssing

I work in this area if properly administered with appropriate controls it can be an effective method of getting the long term unemployed off benefits.
IME this works best in a booming economy rather than a stagnating one and a small scale local way.
It can also be used by companies to get free labour and to get other agencies to train their staff for them [ give them H & S training, moving and handling etc] that the employer legally has to do

It has to be well administered to be effective

When the ratio of jobs to unemployed is 1:8 this will make f all difference to anything

it may make some right wing folk/Daily Wail types happy that those on benefits are "earning" their money but that is it
The jobs tend to be so low skilled their is no actual training involved to do the job [ this would actually cost the company time and money in training and reduced efficiency]. They are not doing it to help society or make the world a better place as their sole responsibility y is to make money and that is why they are doing it.
The “training” is minimal to nil these are not skilled jobs it is low skilled piss simple manual labour that requires next to no training to do.

The system is open to abuse by employers and IMHO if done nationally will increase unemployment as employers use free labour to do the simple tasks that require next to no training.

It can be a good/excellent idea in principle if is done on a small scale with local implementation

To the poster above re training wont get you a job as you would then compete against equally qualified individuals with a lot of experience in at the occupation.
When the ratio is such of jobs to unemployed and we have no commitment to full employment training is not the answer

It’s a shame it could be a good idea but it wont actually get people off unemployment as to do that the solution is to have more jobs…training may matter once we have unfilled vacancies. we are some away short of that

A bit on this by George Carlin 😡

bwaarp - Member
How many of you can't get it into your heads that this has genuinely taken jobs off people who were being paid for it (especially in the low skilled hotel industry where 1 day of training suffices or the "slaves" have experience in that sector already).

If you want to have a work experience scheme, keep it in the public sector and have them do community service work. Knowing how expensive mountain biking is those of you supporting this scheme are probably 40 year old tosspots who work in the city.

41 actually.

Feeling a bit shouty today are we?

Just bear in mind that in an economy constantly outsourcing, downsizing, commoditising, automating, and otherwise reducing the work available that you may be joining that underclass sooner rather than later...

Your point? This is happening and will continue to happen, whether it's fair or right is a moot point.

Would you do your present job for your basic benefit? If not, why do you expect others to do so?

No but then I'm lucky enough / skilled enough (take your pick) to still be wanted in the workplace, there are still some jobs out there.

Having been on the recruitment end of things recently (from both sides as it happens following redundancy) the standard of applicant for many jobs is rapidly falling behind what employers want (again not saying that is right, it just is).

My worry is that the working world is going to continue to accelerate beyond the grasp of some people as low skilled jobs / peoples work ethic ebbs away.

Full employment is a fantastic concept but I can't see it happening, if any of the recent administrations could have achieved it (or massaged the figures enought o make it appear so) they would have done so.

They are not doing it to help society or make the world a better place as their sole responsibility y is to make money and that is why they are doing it.
The “training” is minimal to nil these are not skilled jobs it is low skilled piss simple manual labour that requires next to no training to do.

This is the crux of it IMHO.
Asda etc aren't intending to train anybody, and if they were; what in?
I have no problem with getting people off their bums as the motivation to do so can be difficult when your morale is so low.
If we're going to do that, then it should be for the benefit of the individuals first and society second; not for some huge mega-profit organisation to take advantage of.
And what a surprise that the supermarkets were interested 🙄

the standard of applicant for many jobs is rapidly falling behind what employers want

of course society must not stop beating on the poor and calling them lazy,spongers and work shy etc despite our system being designed to not give everyone employment.

I do approximately 20 hours unpaid work per week, which when counted in brings my wage down to about that paid for admin work in a general office. Good job I enjoy work!

I did 3 weeks unpaid work experience at NatWest when I was 17, I thought it was fine but I suppose it was a real office job rather than cleaning floors or whatever; I only had to do some filing.... Didn't get no dole though.

do you remember when employers saw potential and then trained the staff to have the skills they needed rather than expecting them to walk through the door with them?

Actually I think it's worse than that, a lot of the people who recruit seem to have no imagination (and from personal experience the 'employment' agancies don't either). It's not so much the cost or hassle of training new people up, more a genuine blinkered belief that if you haven't done the job before you're incapable of doing it.

Re full employment - no one has tried so just accept that unemployment is inevitable and there is no solution

Ok, how do we bring about full employment without creating articial jobs (which looked at another way could just be considered making people work for their benefits) if the economy isn't doing it naturally. Personally I don't buy into the conspiracy theories the 'elite' manipulate either to keep the rest of us down. Sure they do what they can to look after themselves but they don't have the power to manipulate such a big system as the economy.

despite our system being designed to not give everyone employment.

I don't think our system has been designed to do anything, it's evolved, warts and all, based on the simple mechanics supply and demand. Maybe that's the knub of the issue.

of course society must not stop beating on the poor and calling them lazy,spongers and work shy etc

I hope that wasn't aimed at my previous post because it's the sort of lazy left wing reaction comparable to the same lazy right wing argument that all on benefits are work shy scroungers.

Many are, many are not. Of those that are many have ended up that way as a result of the policies of previous administrations, some are strong enough to break out of the benefits trap some aren't. Bottom line is there will always be some people who will be unfit to work due to their own attitudes. There's also another group of people who are going to find it harder and harder to get work because they are just not skilled (and training won't help). Many of these people will work very hard if they get the chance, we just have fewer and fewer of these basic hard graft jobs left in society and the replacement low skill jobs in retail and the service industries require different skill sets.

In my previous post I was trying to articulate what I see to be a very real issue that's going to blight many lives in the future that the politicians daren't talk about because it'll be political suicide. Doesn't mean the problem isn't there or that peoples lives will be destroyed. If we keep going like we are those in work will start drawing up the drawbridge behind as has happened in America and that really will fracture society.

"a genuine blinkered belief that if you haven't done the job before you're incapable of doing it."

I agree. But look at it from the employer PoV: You are doing work to satisfy a client. If you fail, the client will buy goods and services from somewhere else. It's a significant risk to take staff without the relevant skills because they will probably fail initially.

It's a competitive market; training and developing staff cost £££ and clients don't want to pay for it. Apprenticing youngsters who have low enough living costs to accept low wages is one way for firms to develop the skilled staff they need.

Watching the item on C4 news. The reference from Asda was truly pathetic. These companies cannot be trusted.

Ok, how do we bring about full employment without creating articial jobs (which looked at another way could just be considered making people work for their benefits) if the economy isn't doing it naturally.

Labour tried that with (some) public sector jobs, hence some of the problems we have now. Look at where all the low skilled DWP/HMRC jobs are.

too much over complication going on

you should be paid the going rate for that role, anything else is just someone lining their pockets.

[s]Apprenticing[/s] [b]Workfaring[/b] youngsters who have low enough living costs to accept [s]low[/s] [b]no[/b] wages is one way for firms to [s]develop the skilled staff they need[/s] [b]increase profits[/b].

I've not seen much in the press to suggest that anything approaching an apprenticeship is being offered under workfare? I love apprenticeships, having been through the system myself and worked alongside many others who benefitted from the scheme. I think they are incredibly valuable. But nothing to do with this current scheme.

I found Mcboo's comment on the first page interesting. I thought I agreed with him in that I don't have a problem with people working for benefits. But how does that make sense? If there is enough work for a job to exist, then why can't that person be paid? If there are no jobs, then artificially creating one surely costs more money than giving someone benefits to do nothing ?

 

Just dug out an article I read last month, not strictly about "unpaid" work but it does talk about low wage employees from the big 4 supermarkets.
A lot of the full time staff, so not these "back to work" cases also have their incomes supplemented by tax credits and benefits. Effectively meaning that the taxpayer is subsidising the huge profits of these companies. They've basically got the government over a barrel, in a time of rising unemployment, being the biggest "employer block in the country" after the NHS. It's not a Conservative or Labour problem, its a case of the power now being weilded by these "state subsidised super companies".

The left would say: set a minimum living wage, make it decent, enforce it, unionise. The right would say: let the market determine wages; if people aren't paid enough, they'll stop spending and the supermarkets themselves will realise that boosting pay packets in the middle will yield better profits than one huge pay packet at the top.

Nobody would say: let the supermarkets pay what they like, and so that they never have to deal with the economic consequences of that, let the state make up the difference. Nobody would say that, because it's senseless. And yet, here we are.

The whole unpaid work affair appears to me to be a case of Ambition Management. If enough people go through this scheme, and it's allowed to become commonplace, then they'll be so desperate that a full time supermarket job becomes comparitively heaven - and the supermarkets keep their supply line of keen cheap labour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/pays-tesco-ceo-wages-we-do

its a case of the power now being weilded by these "state subsidised super companies

Stop using them then!

I did a years YTS, with a government dept.

During college I went on and did two six month placements, both with the same government dept. one paid, one unpaid

I worked by bollocks off in Mcdonalds & pubs during my time at college, to earn enough to do this .

Not only did it get me contacts and a bloody big foot in the door, it got me a great CV, and yes, it did get me a job in the industry - unfortunately it didn't last, but I lived the dream for a couple of years, and other responsibilities in life took me into a better paid, related field, where my CV also played a part.

This CV also led to me being involved in a mountain bike organisation, and the experience, knowledge and contacts gained worked well in allowing me to represent our sport with landowners and government agencies.

I suppose these organisations took advantage of me, worked for free and all that 🙄

I'm sure you'd like to think I got nothing out of it.

But, well, the truth is, you'd be wrong!

RichPenny - Member
its a case of the power now being weilded by these "state subsidised super companies
Stop using them then!

I suppose I must be a closet Tory: 🙁
Whilst I agree that Tescos et al are hardly in need of a subsidized workforce, I don't see that if Benifits are there as a safety net, then why shouldn't people be required to do something for them, paticularly if they gain some work experience in the process.
I've run a joinery business for 25 years, I've often thought of having a young person come and learn some skills with me, but to be honest, if I have to spend a lot of my time showing them which end of a hammer to hold, I'm not going to be in the mood to pay them £200 a week (I only take about £300 a week out of my business myself!).
I would be happy to teach someone some skills, but not at that cost.
I have had guys work for me at £15/hour, but they were skilled and motivated enough to be worth it.

Zulu, why have you wasted time posting about your experiences which have precious little to do with workfare ? Apart from the amusing bit where you point out that you could support yourself through an unpaid government posting by working at macdonalds. A company that has used workfare to reduce the number of people it pays 🙂

I would have loved the opportunity to get £58 per week, plus expenses, to build my CV and increase my employability.

I suppose I would have been better off sitting on my arse watching Kilroy.

Showing your age dude, it's all about Jeremy Kyle these days.

Zulu... tut tut...

At your age you would have been watching Crown Court...

(Giving my own age away there..)

Re full employment - no one has tried so just accept taht unemployment is inevitable and there is no solution

of course society must not stop beating on the poor and calling them lazy,spongers and work shy etc despite our system being designed to not give everyone employment.

please explain to me how full employment would work with the free movement of labour in the EU

The supermarkets' power comes from having a (subsidised) workforce of 900000 people, and massive profits, in an economic climate of rising unemployment. They can, effectively, dictate their own terms to the government in any discussion.

the government tell you where to shop? have you gone to the press with this blatant abuse of your human right to by your food from the corner shop 😉

I would have loved the opportunity to get £58 per week, plus expenses, to build my CV and increase my employability.

Day 2!!

Interesting views, I run a not for profit cycling facility in North Wales, we are newish and pretty weather dependent so cashflow isn't always great, especially over the winter

After 7months on my own I needed extra staffing so got a work placement in via the future jobs fund...he's now employed full time with us but it's a struggle to pay him so I'm looking for grant assistance to help fund him

I know things will start picking up now and the summer will be manic so have started talking to A4E regards a work placement, they have a lad who's mad keen to get into the cycling trade and would love to join us.

How is that not a win/win scenario?

He gets experience with customers, mechanic training, first aid quals, discipline of working and probably a TCL/BC/CTC qualification if I can get funding

We get an extra body over the busiest part of the year, we genuinely cannot afford to pay an extra staff member so nobody misses out on a job and if we do grow and find ourselves in a position to recruit the work placement would be first choice...seems a no brainer to me

Maybe the answer is to restrict these work placements to SME's or social enterprises to allow them to grow in an environment where they are scared to recruit otherwise

i think theres a big difference between a not for profit cycling facility in north wales....

and Tescos whos estimated global take for 2012 will be 30bn

Donk - I guess if it depends upon which company you choose to get some work expereince with.

I started off by volunteering for over a year at a local office, aged 14-15, did my school work experience there, which put me in good stead when it came to sorting out my own YTS placement, as they put me in touch with people and recommended me, and subsequently went back for my college placements.

Self motivation!

if you sit on your arse and wait for the DSS to suggest and organise experience placements for you, then perhaps the best you can hope for is Tesco...