egafd.com

Interesting story in the Guardian on this subject

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... employment

Youth unemployment is currently over 1 million. In summary the government's "work experience" plan for young jobseekers exempts them from the minimum wage for up to 8 weeks at a time and provides placements at Tesco, Poundland, Argos, Sainsbury's and a large number of other big businesses.

The young kids involved are doing up to 30 hours a week of unpaid labour and need to be available in some cases between 9am and 10pm at night. If they turn down the offer, many are told they will lose their ?53 a week JSA.

The article includes the story of a 22 year old with a BSC Geology degree who was forced to work unpaid in Poundland.

To me, this poses the question, what is the objective of all of this?

1. Given these stores are getting free labour, why would they want to take on full-time staff that they have to pay?
2. Given the vast majority of the people on these placements are left to their own devices and do the same job as the paid staff, is it providing "training"? No.
3. Would the likes of Poundland ever employ full time someone who has A levels and a degree? No, because they know that they will be off as soon as they get something better. Besides there is loads of free labour.
4. Given that youth unemployment is over 1 million, is this programme making it easier or harder for people who genuinely want paid employment in these stores? Far, far harder.
5. Is someone who has worked very hard to get A levels and a university degree with debts that go with it, likely to be a dole scrounger? I think this unlikely. What is more likely is that they want to earn a decent job with a good wage so that they can live a fulfilled life and have bought in to the concept from successive governments that education is the way to a good life.

So what is this all about then? Punishment. Treating the young unemployed uniformly as a bunch of scroungers.

Cheers
D

Workhouse would be a more apt description. Hvae we suddently accepted its ok as a country to ask kids to work for 30 hours a week for pittance?

Arbeit Macht Frei

This scheme was introduced by the Labour Party under NVQ Training. I participated and got a full time job at the end of the 3 month trail period.
Not all employers are bastards by the way - this scheme helps them find good candidates for jobs and gives them (and the employee) a trail period together. An employer will always be happy to pay when they find the right person.

"This scheme was introduced by the Labour Party under NVQ Training."

I am obviously missing something.

What is the connection between NVQ training, the characteristics of which are:

If you want to get a recognised qualification related to a particular industry or sector, an NVQ could be the answer.
You can take NVQs if you are employed, you are studying at college and have a part-time job or access to a work placement, you can also take an NVQ qualification at level 2 or 3 as part of an Apprenticeship.

And the scheme which I describe whereby:

For example, you stack shelves in Poundland.
Get no training.
Get no qualification
Have to be unemployed and are often forced to take it in order to keep benefits.

"Not all employers are bastards by the way"

I don't recall saying they were.

"An employer will always be happy to pay when they find the right person."

This certainly isnt the case with the vast majority of internships in which a string of interns replace each other and work for free. And I would be surprised if this was the case with the Spar, Poundland etc etc. when all they want is someone, preferably free, to stack shelves, a job which doesnt exactly require an NVQ.

Cheers
D

If used as intended to give a prospective employer a ' no strings ' trial of a potential employee and vice versa the scheme has potential.

However use by employers of potential free / cheap casual labour is simply wrong.

The reality as I've posted before what is needed is the creation of 2 million real jobs across the board from the super brains to the basic to get the unemployed in work.

has always, ALWAYS, been about punishment and not about worthwhile jobs, training or whatever.

I once went on a Restart course, a long time ago. Huge joke. All we did was sit in a classroom for a week and have the piss taken out of us.

Another course similar to this was run by NACRO. It consisted of two days induction, then we were to go into a main group to learn how to count and write. I'm not making this up. There was an assumption back then, and I'm talking late 80s, that anyone without a job was thick as shit and everybody was treated the same. I'm sure the literacy stuff helped a lot of people, but you can't expect to put someone with an IQ in the mid 130s (me folks, believe it or not) to get anything out of that shit.

Seems things have worsened.

Pauline from the League of Gentleman was based on the writer's experience of one of these courses. If Ned has seen this it doubtless rings true to him.

'If you want to get a recognised qualification related to a particular industry or sector, an NVQ could be the answer.
You can take NVQs if you are employed, you are studying at college and have a part-time job or access to a work placement, you can also take an NVQ qualification at level 2 or 3 as part of an Apprenticeship.'

Talk about missing the point! Your whole post is talking about people working for very little. Most people on the NVQ courses I did (retail) and have known in my working life just did it to get a foot in the door - the qualification was just the way to get in.

'"An employer will always be happy to pay when they find the right person."

This certainly isn't the case with the vast majority of internships in which a string of interns replace each other and work for free. And I would be surprised if this was the case with the Spar, Poundland etc etc. when all they want is someone, preferably free, to stack shelves, a job which doesn't exactly require an NVQ.'

Stick to what you know mate - don't talk in generalities about what you dont know, it makes you look stupid

"Talk about missing the point!"

Okay I will attempt to make it even easier to understand in the hope the penny might drop for you.

The subject of this post is workfare. Got it?

A definition of workfare.
A form of welfare in which capable adults are required to perform work, often in public-service jobs, as a condition of receiving benefits from the state.

Got it?

Is an NVQ in which someone who is employed, for example, and decides to get a qualification and training,workfare? Yes or No? I would say no.

Is someone on Job Seekers who has absolutely no desire to stack shelves in Poundland but is forced to do it otherwise they will lose their benefits, workfare?

Yes or No? I would say yes.

On the subject of internships,

http://www.jobmarketsuccess.com/2011/04 ... ternships/

and http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/no ... npaid-army

As for your statement
"Stick to what you know mate - don't talk in generalities about what you dont know, it makes you look stupid"

Best to take your own advice.........mate.

CHeers
D