Government work experience scheme protests..

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Brooksy, Mar 5, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I just so happened to be trawling around Hull, shopping for a few bits of smart attire for my briefing date which is upcoming - the usual brogues, shirts etc.

    I was soon to come upon a somewhat rabble dash conglomeration of Hull's finest protesters outside of McDonald's. I have been quite intrigued by this topic and also felt that my debating skills could use a little work - also seeing as of the manner he thrust the leaflet in my path leaving me no option but to engage led to me having a polite conversation with the group.

    My view on the situation is that a lot of these youth are currently complaining that they have no job at present and that this work experience scheme in which they do not get paid is "slave labour" and are demanding for the usual pay as though they were a full employee.

    I aired my opinion to the group in that the individuals are being given a good opportunity, although lacking in monetary opportunity, there is still invaluable work experience to be had and I had also read that McDonald's give an NVQ qualification to their work experience folk. I also asked them as to what is the better situation, either the individuals sit at home doing nothing and claim off the state and spend the rest of their time protesting out on the street that it is "unfair" or simply crack on at the opportunity, gain work experience and increase the chances of getting paid employment and potentially a qualification. Alas, I was met with silence and they all retorted to their "slave labour" propaganda.

    How do all of you feel about the situation? As mentioned, I see it as a great opportunity for individuals in the situation that if I were in the position would grab with both hands!

    Discuss.
     
  2. Bunch of *******, are they that dumb to not realise that the experience the gain could be the thing that gets them a job when the economic climate gets better.

    They should get the same treatment as the civil servants under Jeremy Clarkson rule.
     
  3. My thoughts exactly, I couldn't quite grasp that they would pass off an opportunity to gain experience to increase chances of gaining paid employment.

    It seems to come down once again to a something for nothing society that we are all involved in; individuals who are unable to get a job would like simply to be handed one and paid full wages for it.

    I am correct in seeing the flaw in their thought process, unless I'm mistaken?
     
  4. The problem is that scum like them would be crap employees and so will never have jobs, no matter how good the economy.

    We would have to abolish benefits and tell them to work or starve before they would be willing to actually work; and some of them would probably be unable to change their behaviour even then.
     
  5. Well there are surely two competing principles? Forced labour is illegal, a deliberate decision to live a life on benefits at the expense of others is immoral.

    I can't see any easy way out of the mess. Personally I don't think this scheme will work - the pilot studies have been good but pilot studies always are because it is usually in the interests of the private firm running them to paint a picture of success in order to secure future profits.

    In my opinion, maintaining a large pool of unemployment is a deliberate act of public policy.
     
  6. The thing is, companies like Tesco will just realise they can use someone on JSA rather than employing someone.

    The percentage of people given a job after their experience is done was pretty low if I recall.

    I'm all for helping people back to work, but there's plenty of non-profit orginisations in need of help, better to send people to be carers for the disabled or pick up litter than allow big companies who make massive profits to get free labour.

    I'm not some whinging communist either.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. I completely see your point the Pyianno - although, this scheme that the Government runs is optional, it only becomes contractual once the individual accepts to go on to the scheme. This is where my confusion lies in that the individuals are throwing up a fuss over something that people have the choice to make as to participate in it or not.

    I don't think the scheme will work in entirety, but this is going to be mainly down to the individuals who throw up the fuss about a bit of hard work. I still stand by my opinion that the experience they gain is invaluable and will help them to get another job. If anything, with everyone throwing up the fuss it seems a little more beneficial to those who aren't whining about the situation - it shows determination and drive if nothing else.

    Edit:

    My mistake! I was led to believe that the scheme was optional, however it is forced unless with good reason. I do still, however, stand by my opinion that it is beneficial and illogical to not see the opportunity involved.
     
  8. No scheme will "work" - i.e. get rid of the unemployment pool. However this one has some obvious benefits. Foremost among them is it grants experience on the basis of need and not (necessarily) competence. By this I mean, desirable employees will probably secure a job no matter what. This targets those who ordinarily a large employer would not even consider. I dare say these probably present the biggest burden to the tax system too.

    A letter was published from a Job Centre to one of the "volunteers" - it was written in the usually threatening, vague, civil-service language that is intended to leave the recipient in no doubt about what the likely outcome of refusing to "volunteer" would be (i.e. complete loss of income), whilst leaving enough technical and legal wriggle room to still meet the theoretical requirements of a "voluntary" scheme.
     
  9.  
  10. I would definitely agree with this one, it should not be limited to the larger companies who may use it as a form of free labour. The scheme should be widened and there are definitely two sides to the issue; between the fact that the opportunities are valuable and that the scheme seems to be being exploited by large corporations.

    It seems to be a question of what is the lesser evil, the corporations gaining or having individuals work for no extra pay.
     
  11. Get your calculator, or a pen and paper, and work out how much it would cost to put the entire unemployment pool into jobs at the national average salary (say £20k), then work out how much this would cost as a percentage of government expenditure.

    Then deduct from this figure how much is spent on benefits for the unemployed.

    Full employment is actually quite easily affordable - it would simply require the political will power to achieve it.

    Not that I am necessarily in favour of doing this mind, just that it would be perfectly achievable.
     
  12. It does sound like the complainers are just being bitter workshy types when you put it like that, I like Tesco, I think it's great, I can buy most of the things I need from one store and they make large profits because they give people what they want.

    But the issue for me is more that a paying job has been lost and filled with free labour at a time when there are not many about.

    It would probably be a lot more helpful, if un-paid labour was donated to those who can't afford it, meaning that no job is lost. If the companies could prove that they couldn't otherwise employ someone.

    For example, a small independant business who could really do with the help, but can't afford to pay someone, if the work done by the JSA claiment leads to extra revenue, well there's a strong case for the company to employ them.
     
  13. Question is if they are that crap why should the disabled put up with them and how good are they going to be at picking up litter?
    Companies should suffer severe penalties for breaching the contract that they agree to and they should be forced to offer at least 50% of quality mentoring/education/training during the course of the individuals association. The people who administer these schemes are (I reiterate from another thread) incompetent and greedy. Mostly these schemes are contracted out to fly by night agencies whose only motive is profit and whose only skill is greed
     
  14. How do you know they are crap? It's not just the lazy mongs who can't get a job these days, there's plenty of youngsters with proper academic qualifications that can't so much get a job in maccie d's these days, at least in certain areas.
     
  15. So are you saying then that there is not the political will to do it? Is that because in your opinion it would be political suicide?
    And is that the only reason?