Tankus Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 ......................... didn't see immigration mentioned Isnt this what drives wages down and creates this market . .......no immigrants wages would go up as there would be a demand for workers , not a glut ..... funny that the left seem the most outraged over workfare , but then they are the ones that has created this environment for political purposes I used to stack shelves in the evening after school (70's) those starter jobs for the young no longer exist ...there are now Poles with degrees doing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I can also see the superficial argument that big bad Tesco get something at the expense of the poor. Except they don't. There is a good degree of competition between supermarkets in many parts of the country, so any benefit accrues to the public. Ah, right. So the stores that benefit from free, subsidised labour don't profit and pass on all the savings to the customers, right? The comparison to slavery lacks basic sanity. A slave did not get paid anything, and would starve in the absence of useful skills. Oh, I had no idea that slavery was a humanitarian exercise. They are free to do as they please if they don't need benefits, such as move to some other country where working is a lifestyle choice. Ah, the old 'move to another country' one. Workfare eliminates paid jobs. This makes a proper, paid job less of a likely option for other people. So this achieves a higher deficit, more unemployed people, and higher supermarket prices. The upside is that some bottom of the range jobs will pay more than they would otherwise? Just why would anyone paying tax be in favour of spending it to achieve any of that? A sense of fair pay for a fair days work perhaps? Or is 'screw you, at least my shopping is cheaper' the new paradigm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkwell Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Well done to those that made the boycott site, very helpful. I'm especially pleased that a Sainsburys is about to open next to my nearest Tesco - no more money for them now. Sure I can easily find alternatives for Boots, Superdrug, Poundland, and Wilco. Don't use them much but will go over the street from now on. I've also signed the petition, http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356, as I'm against this scheme even if they try to make it voluntary. The whole thing is set up so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Well the JSA is for people actually looking for work, it is not a food seekers allowance. Some people will enjoy what they are doing and some people will not. Either way it will motivate people to actually do something about their situation. The people who are not prepared to work but will happily take the money and sit on their arses all day will have to have a rethink. No they will not. Those who actively seek to avoid work will not be taken on. Tesco and others will not employ the least willing and least motivated who will likely cost tesco more than the value they add, which by definition will be this group. Tesco et all will however take on the most motivated ones whom it can get the most value out of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 NMW The current rates (from 1 October 2011) are: £6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over £4.98 - the 18-20 rate £3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18 £2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship So are they actually being paid at apprentice rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 on the flip side, the boycott workfare movement has said that 1400 people have worked for tesco in the past 4 months and only 300 have got a job. 20% is actually pretty good. now people might say, well, tesco would have hired these people anyway. im not sure they would. given the option of employing someone who is recently redundant and someone who has been out of work for 12 months, people will often say that the long time out can be a stain on your cv which prevents you from getting a look in. once you pass a certain time out from employment, it makes it harder to get an interview when competition is so high. this gives a chance for people with arguably a blot on their cv, at least a step through the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) The comparison to slavery lacks basic sanity. A slave did not get paid anything, and would starve in the absence of useful skills. In comparison, the unemployed enjoy conditions broadly similar those working for the minimum wage. They are free to do as they please if they don't need benefits, such as move to some other country where working is a lifestyle choice. They did not get paid but the master was obliged to provide the slave housing and food, at least if they wanted to slave to be fit enough for any useful work. Some cultures treated slaves harshly, but in others slavery was quite comfortable, such as a slave for a Roman household. Romans would sometimes fall into slavery if they were unable to pay back debts, or were too poor to pay the state taxes......hmmm Edited February 18, 2012 by Britney's Piers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 They did not get paid but the master was obliged to provide the slave housing and food, at least if they wanted to slave to be fit enough for any useful work. Some cultures treated slaves hardly, but in others slavery was quite comfortable, such as a slave for a Roman household. Romans would sometimes fall into slavery if they were unable to pay back debts, or were too poor to pay the state taxes...... From that era: “The name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquillity, servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death.” - Cicero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchbux Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 on the flip side, the boycott workfare movement has said that 1400 people have worked for tesco in the past 4 months and only 300 have got a job. How many of those 300 lasted long enough for it to have been worth all the money the government paid A4e to get them back to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 on the flip side, the boycott workfare movement has said that 1400 people have worked for tesco in the past 4 months and only 300 have got a job. 20% is actually pretty good. now people might say, well, tesco would have hired these people anyway. im not sure they would. given the option of employing someone who is recently redundant and someone who has been out of work for 12 months, people will often say that the long time out can be a stain on your cv which prevents you from getting a look in. once you pass a certain time out from employment, it makes it harder to get an interview when competition is so high. this gives a chance for people with arguably a blot on their cv, at least a step through the door. The overall number of workfare placements taken on as full time employees is about 4%. For example for Holland and barret - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/03/waterstones-ends-unpaid-work-placements?newsfeed=true "One of the companies involved in rolling out work experience placements is the health store Holland and Barrett, which has 1,000 such placements across 250 stores. A full-time employee at one Holland and Barrett store, who did not want to be identified, said they believed the placements were starting to replace paid work. "We have had a number of placements in our store and have noticed that the hours for part-time staff have been reduced. Staff are upset because we are all struggling to make ends meet," the employee said. "The real benefactors of this scheme are the companies who receive millions of pounds worth of labour absolutely free of charge and the losers are the jobseekers who see potential jobs being filled by workfare placements for months at a time and the loyal part-timers who find their regular overtime hours savagely cut." Holland and Barrett said it had taken on about 50 work experience jobseekers as paid employees. "We have committed to working with JobCentre Plus to make available 1,000 work placements available for young people aged between 16 and 24 years. We have 250 stores taking part in the scheme as well as our head office and distribution and packaging site," it said." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 This whole "do work for no money" requirement that seems to spreading across the country is pretty disgraceful. It's not just schemes like this, vast sectors of work require you to work endlessly for no pay as an intern to get "experience" before even the chance of a paid job. It's spreading beyond the usual suspects (media, journalism, arts, charities etc) into bog standard office jobs. I remember a decent article on the con of internships last year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/25/interns-internship-unemployment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 These people are looking for work and under this scheme they have found it. I don't have a problem with people being asked to demonstrate that they are actually prepared to do some work. If they had found a job they would have a contract of employment from Tesco. They don't have such a contract. You are confusing state sanctioned cheap labour with employment- these are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherSTR Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So a private corporation is getting the benefit of not paying circa £240 to each individual, and there are people whom actually agree that this is acceptable? What am I missing? You'really missing the fact that a company is taking on a stream of people for 8 weeks at a time who might or might not want to work. I think it's accetable. The self righteous indignation in this thread is nauseating! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 make an English test compulsory for all jobs ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 You'really missing the fact that a company is taking on a stream of people for 8 weeks at a time who might or might not want to work. I think it's accetable.The self righteous indignation in this thread is nauseating! If Tesco need workers- why don't they hire some and pay the going rate? And if they really want to help the unemployed why don't they offer real training courses that might lead to a real job? Instead of which we get this bullshite proposition that benefits no one except Tesco's shareholders who get subsidised labour at the expense of the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 You'really missing the fact that a company is taking on a stream of people for 8 weeks at a time who might or might not want to work. I think it's accetable. The self righteous indignation in this thread is nauseating! I'm more worried about my tax £s funding Tesco's multi-billion £ profits (and fat pay cheques/bonuses for their senior execs). Also, not happy about the unfair advantage that this gives Tesco and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 You'really missing the fact that a company is taking on a stream of people for 8 weeks at a time who might or might not want to work. I think it's accetable. The self righteous indignation in this thread is nauseating! What you seem to be missing is these jobs were advertised at £10-11 an hour, and have now completely dried up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 You'really missing the fact that a company is taking on a stream of people for 8 weeks at a time who might or might not want to work. I think it's accetable. The self righteous indignation in this thread is nauseating! It's very strange that Tesco have made do with it's normal workers doing a 'job sample' for about an hour or 2 at the most. It's just a free (slave)labour scheme .....why pretend. Self righteous indignation? I'd hope that I would have shown such indignation in the 30's when the Nazis used slave labour to build their motorways. (I only used it once...think I got away with it though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeky Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Perhaps Tesco's et al. should pay the going rate, maybe not to the people on the work experience, but pay for the scheme at roughly the same cost as taking on the employee with equivalent experience. So they pay the government and whatever the monitoring overhead (additional support and training staff, nvq assessors?). The cost then wouldn't be less for Tesco. It doesn't make the bonded individuals any better off, but it might be more beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Perhaps Tesco's et al. should pay the going rate, maybe not to the people on the work experience, but pay for the scheme at roughly the same cost as taking on the employee with equivalent experience. So they pay the government and whatever the monitoring overhead (additional support and training staff, nvq assessors?). The cost then wouldn't be less for Tesco. It doesn't make the bonded individuals any better off, but it might be more beneficial. Why shouldn't the people doing the work get the money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russe11 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 has it been mentioned yet, Matalan, Sainsburys and others have withdrawn or avoided the scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 has it been mentioned yet, Matalan, Sainsburys and others have withdrawn or avoided the scheme. Yay! It'll be Sainburys (not Tesco) tomorrow for my weekly shop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Are Tesco having problems recruiting staff these days? Surely if they needed 300 staff they only had to place an ad in the local paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) It's a deliberate oCCult thing cos they feed/tap the hatred coming from people Tesco Head-Quarters is in Cheshunt HERTS (a Masonic infested County esp their tunnels in Hertford etc) All this Heart-less crap wos released around Valentines A huge joke by the elite Masons-illuminati on the population - whom they manipulate at will cos you innocent ignorants are Glued to Top Gear & Corrie Further, first Tesco store was started Burnt OAK by a Jew Edited February 19, 2012 by erranta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Are Tesco having problems recruiting staff these days? Surely if they needed 300 staff they only had to place an ad in the local paper. They even need to do that. Any business today with a public profile is innundated with speculative applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.