Unemployed lady seeks legal advice over human rights issue.

Some people have not read the article properly and then slag her off for sponging.

I think if the government can put you in a job for 2 weeks then they or the company should pay her a full time wage as the employer is making profits from her over the Christmas holidays.

Forced slave labour imo. i would rather see my taxes go to her rather than some EU migrant from wherever seeking to rip the benefit system off.

reply to post by kidohno


There's nothing in your posts that reflect the reality of the job market in the UK.

The problem now is that employers are aware of the unemployed being forced to take volunteer positions, and so who needs a paid employee when you can have a taxpayer subsidised employee? So every person working for basic benefit is essentially standing in the way of another person obtaining paid employment, which equals fewer jobs and results in more benefit claimants, and more subsidised workers. How long until they find someone to do your job for benefits? Every single one of us is expendable, while employed by someone else and with the trend going as it is how long before you're forced to clean the public lavatory, because I was unemployed and able to do the same job as you without taking a wage?

I suppose you're a supporter of 'the big community'? Can't you see that this approach only takes paying jobs out of the system and replaces them with tax payer funded slavery - yep, I said it. The worst thing is that these are private profit-making organisations, most of whom pay the least tax back in, who are benefiting, not local good causes or charities.

Originally posted by mandroids
Let me make 2 valid points.

1, this work will not enhance her chances of finding the work she studied for. In fact, it’s an insult to a graduate.

2, would YOU enjoy being forced into work you knew would make you feel unhappy?

Isn’t that what ATS is all about…rights? Please refrain from tabloid ‘she gotta work’ posts.

What's to refrain from? Let me make 2 valid points...

1. When people go to university they should understand that doesn't automatically entitle them to a job when they leave, or that a job will magically become available.

2. The benefit system isn't designed to pay people who have opportunities to earn a wage but don't like the job/s available.

Sadly in this case, the tabloid 'she gotta work' response is not inappropriate. I'm currently blessed to be in a job I enjoy with a good wage, but I've had two long periods of unemployment in the past and took several very low paid menial jobs to get by - and I'm glad I did for the life experience it gave me.

The real point here may be deeper though. The number of university students in the UK continues to rise while the number of actual jobs requiring graduate level applicants does not rise proportionately. Ultimately people are going to be disappointed.

Originally posted by Pr0t0
reply to post by kidohno

 

There's nothing in your posts that reflect the reality of the job market in the UK.

The problem now is that employers are aware of the unemployed being forced to take volunteer positions, and so who needs a paid employee when you can have a taxpayer subsidised employee? So every person working for basic benefit is essentially standing in the way of another person obtaining paid employment, which equals fewer jobs and results in more benefit claimants, and more subsidised workers. How long until they find someone to do your job for benefits? Every single one of us is expendable, while employed by someone else and with the trend going as it is how long before you're forced to clean the public lavatory, because I was unemployed and able to do the same job as you without taking a wage?

I suppose you're a supporter of 'the big community'? Can't you see that this approach only takes paying jobs out of the system and replaces them with tax payer funded slavery - yep, I said it. The worst thing is that these are private profit-making organisations, most of whom pay the least tax back in, who are benefiting, not local good causes or charities.

Shouldn't need to be on benefits for long in the first place. Get a job. Your post doesn't change the fact 90% of people on benefits in the UK are lazy and don't want to work because it doesn't pay to work anymore. You get more freebies if you decide you don't have any dignity and want to scab off other peoples hard work.

Again I say... there are LOADS of jobs, TONS....

I wonder how many great artists and academics who have enhanced society and our species over the years would never have done so if they had instead been forced to work mind numbing jobs because the masses wouldn't support them over the inevitable in-between stages of their worthy pursuits.

Rules like this will help to give us a world where only the privileged minority can afford to better themselves. The movers and shakers of society will be populated by the silver-spoon brigade while the rest of us peasants are left without any route out of the doldrums.

The wealthfare state is about all of us pitching in a little to help those who need it a lot and we do ourselves no favours when we begrudge the aspirational. This is a divisive situation that divides us for the conquering rich clique. They watch us bitterly squabble; the mob shouting "Why should they get a break...?"

True that a little hard work never hurt anyone, but why is that always less true for the rich than for the rest of us?

This is yet another firewall around the good-jobs, preserving them for the children of the rich, and preventing those with ultimately far more to give back to society from rightfully claiming them.

We are cutting down our own saviours before they've had a chance to blossom.

reply to post by kidohno


Are there really? TONS of jobs?

Sure there are always positions for skilled, QUALIFIED people, labourers, nurses etc but the government won't help you pay to retrain. So some develop their skills any way they can and offer voluntary services to non-profit groups who represent something they empathise with or support - but this isn't allowed because they aren't 'registered' as acceptable volunteer positions - so they lose benefits or are forced into working for profit making companies doing the jobs they just stripped paid workers of. All the menial positions are on the work scheme. I know some of these people who LOST their jobs to be replaced by someone else who was signing on. So now the price of that one paid position is 2 very much unemployed persons and the cost to the employer is zero. What part of this is the fault of the unemployed?

All these people who are banging on about "entitlement" make me angry. You are just spouting the crap that you have been programmed with and fail to see the big picture.

If someone does not want to work in a job that they know will be bad for them, they know will destroy their soul, then why should they be forced into it? There is more to life than just working for corporations you know? And anyway, how do you know people who claim benefits do not contribute positively to society in other ways?

I would even say that a huge number of people who work for corrupt corporations contribute far more negatively to society than a dole dossing bum does. So these corporations are entitled to have us work for them for as low a wage, and as poor working conditions as they can get away with paying, but we are not allowed to live our lives for ourselves? Thats slavery. And you are all supporting it.

And the amount of money ESA claimants get is a pittance, really. £65 a week? Come on. Thats NOTHING compared to what the corrupt fiddle on a weekly basis. The entire benefits bill is swallowed up many, many times by the amount of money lost by rich, greedy corporations, individuals, politicians and banks who swindle and rob from us all on a daily basis.

If you REALLY have a problem with this society then take it out on those who cause the REAL problems.

Strange story. I wonder why this happened given she was working in a museum? Still its all BS. Not enough jobs to go around but yet we STILL need more immigration for "the economy"

Originally posted by kidohno

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by kidohno

 

You never know in the current economic climate, how secure your job is. More and more people are loosing their jobs and there are less and less job opportunities available. YOU could be next. Lets hope that never happens , but if it does I hope people don't accuse you of being a lazy scrounger.

Myth. There are plenty of jobs available, if I lost my job now (I won't) I could easily walk into at least 10 other jobs, some in the same field, some in a different field. These jobs might be higher paid or lower paid than my existing one, but I can sure tell you now... I have never, and will never, claim benefit from the government or anyone else.

That's the problem with our society as a whole today. Not just the UK, but world wide.

STEP UP, AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU A LIVING.

EDIT: Just to add. There is high unemployment because people are f*****g lazy and as per the example in the Daily Mail with this moron "Cait" - people are letting their ego determine where they work.

edit on 13-1-2012 by kidohno because: (no reason given)

And when there are 3m jobs available in this country for the 3m unemployed - rather than 400,000 - that little vitriolic rant won't seem so idiotic. So huffed up by your own self importance, I wonder just what happens when your private pension disappears, suppose you'll be expecting the state to fund your old age then, expect the free tv license, spend your heating allowance on a nice holiday in the sun?

Blamethegreys, My dear feel free to be as smart mouthed as you like. It must be nice to know you have a job to fall into before you get your qualification, not everyone is fortunate enough. I'm quite sure many employers would fund travel, but for a young woman barely out of education I'm sure she's going to have a bit more of a fight on her hands landing on her feet.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bismarket

 

Yup, still feel sick by her actions.

Thanks for asking though......

It's not really the girls actions that of concern to me , they are a side issue. Now if you consider yourself on the right or on the left what is going on is wrong. If you consider yourself on the right and a capitalist, then you should be against governments subsidising private companies with cheap labour.

As benefit claimants receive tax payers money, their labour should not be used for private advantage. I agree we need to make people do some work, but it should be for the benefit of civic and national life rather than as cheap labour. There are loads of things people could be made to do. Work that benefits the whole community not just increases the profits of selected business's. If people can not see this then, there's not much hope.

Now that i can certainly agree with.

However, in this particular case (which the thread was about) i am absolutely disgusted by her actions. She was sent there for 2 weeks, that was it. Ok, she didn't get a job at the end of it but others have. I do not like to speculate but you have to wonder if she showed a bad attitude whilst there as the rest of her actions would indicate she probably did.

As i understand the scheme in question, after work experience there are some jobs available - obviously not everyone will get these but some will. Therefore this scheme is worthwhile in the current economic climate. I would be more uncomfortable if this scheme was introduced in the good times rather than the hole we are all in now.

At the end of the day, she was happy to do voluntary work in a field she enjoys whilst claiming from society. There was absolutely nothing stopping her taking a part time job doing whatever (and therefore giving her more money to live on and with only part time hours she would still get housing benefit paid) and continuing to do her voluntary work in order to benefit her skill set. She instead chooses not to and goes further by getting a lawyer (who i bet is working for legal aid) to contest the point she is being asked to go work somewhere else for 2 weeks.

As usual, most members of ATS cannot read.

No company should be getting free labor. I don't care if they are on the dole, if they work they should be paid for their work. Anything less than that is slavery.

Originally posted by McGinty
I wonder how many great artists and academics who have enhanced society and our species over the years would never have done so if they had instead been forced to work mind numbing jobs because the masses wouldn't support them over the inevitable in-between stages of their worthy pursuits.

Well we always know that the Tories do not want people do better themselves....they have always tried to keep the gap between rich at poor at a huge distance.... they look after their own needs and never protect those in society who need it.

look at the people that their cuts have been targeted at.

Disabled
Pensioners/elderly
Single Parents
Charities
Inner city programs
Police
Teachers
The NHS
Students

Basically the poor, the vulnerable, public services and those who actually need help more than others.


Who doesn't feel the effects

Hmmmm

Bankers....
The rich....
Corporations....

Originally posted by PW229

Originally posted by scotsdavy1

You are able to place restrictions on your availability if any of the following apply:

you cannot be available at once because you do voluntary work; or

To coin a phrase from a game I used to play. "BOOM, HEADSHOT"

She did voluntary work in her area of expertise. She was forced out of that position to "work" in an area she had no experience of. In court (where I have experience) we would call this a "WIN WIN."

Her voluntary work was in her area of expertise? You mean the voluntary work in that bastion of geological science, the "Pen Room Museum of writing and pen trade memorabilia"?

You sign a contract with an employer. You work where they tell you to work and in return they pay you money. You might really like the area you are working in, you might even be a bit of an expert. If your employer decides to move you on then that is their choice. They are paying. You can always quit. You might suffer hardship as a result but the decision rests with you. You are not being carted off to a gulag somewhere and made to work at gunpoint.

The employer in this case was the government. The offer to "tailor" work could arguably extend to choosing hours and locations suitable to the claimant's situation, ie a single mother may be restricted to times when appropriate childcare was readily available. I do not see a human rights abuse, to be honest.

There are perhaps two issues to seperate out here. The first is the issue of whether it is appropriate for the government to dictate where she works in return for the benefits she receives. The second is whether it is appropriate for the businesses to get the "free labour" at the expense of the taxpayer.

In relation to the first issue, I have no problem with a government giving people a "grace period" to search for work under their own steam. Once that period has expired, I have no problem if those people become eligible for work placements where and when the government dictates. If the woman in the report was prevented from attending interviews during that placement, or otherwise prevented from searching or applying for jobs, then I would have a problem. As it is, I think she has every reason to be annoyed but no real reason to make a big issue out of it. Sometimes life will suck. Welcome to the adult world. Deal with it. You are free to make your own decisions but with that right comes the responsibility to look after yourself. If you can't handle the responsibility, don't assume you should still have the right.

In relation to the second issue, I am divided. It feels wrong that the companies will benefit so easily from this. On the other hand, I think it is positive to get people into premises and actually working, even for short stints. The problem is - what are the alternatives? Any able-bodied person can stack shelves or handle basic tasks.You couldn't send just anyone to a placement in an office. You would end up with a multi-tiered system of placements based on ability. While I am quite happy to work on the basis of meritocracy it would become an underfunded and badly managed system and no doubt go badly wrong. An even playing field approach (everyone gets a shot at basic retail work) might not be fair, but it is potentially fairer than the alternatives.

Civic work was mentioned as an alternative. I quite like this but I can understand why this might fall through. First, civic work is often used for community service punishments, so there would be complaints that we are making jobseekers look like criminals. Secondly. it would involve more expenditure in terms of staffing, training, health & safety compliance, insurance etc that would come from the welfare budgets (as opposed to CJS budgets for community service). At least with Poundland they have all of those frameworks in place.

Finally... "WIN WIN"? In an English court? There's a multitude of ADR/RDOC exponents who would like to disagree with you! I'd love to know what form your experience takes but it would only sidetrack things and I suspect the argument would be pointless anyway

Originally posted by Firefly_
If someone does not want to work in a job that they know will be bad for them, they know will destroy their soul, then why should they be forced into it? There is more to life than just working for corporations you know?

I absolutely agree... as long as they can pay their way. I'm not paying for them to sit on their backsides waiting for their perfect job to come along. Do what an awful lot of other people did (including myself) and get a job you don't like but pays the bills until the job you want comes along.

Life isn't fair. I wish it was, but it isn't and it never will be for as long as humans are human.

I may be guilty of not reading it correctly, I've got workmen in making a racket and doing my head in.

No, you should not be made slave labour but when you sign that dotted line for that measly sum you have agreed to it, you lose the right to pick and choose, if they send you on a scheme painting walls then you have to do it..

I'm well aware of the DWP's practices as I spent 14 months appealing against a medical decision and won, they made my life hell in that time.

What we have here is a situation caused by the lazy scum that live on the dole but can work, I see them around here daily, they and their parents have not worked in years, the parents maybe 15yrs, its become a way of life especially on estates like mine.

Sorry 'Cait' (Kate) but applying for the tax payers cash to fix a problem you signed on for ISN'T going to win hearts and minds. There are jobs to be had, perhaps 'Cait' needs to broaden her horizon to avoid the situation she's in.

The problem for her is that while there are graduate's taking any job going and happy with it she is never going to win. The DWP will do ANYTHING to get people off the figures, its not fair but she's most likely in a much better situation than many people who live and scrimp on this tiny amount of cash, they cannot work, don't fiddle but no one champions their rights and people like Cait won't get their sympathy either.

Originally posted by McGinty
I wonder how many great artists and academics who have enhanced society and our species over the years would never have done so if they had instead been forced to work mind numbing jobs because the masses wouldn't support them over the inevitable in-between stages of their worthy pursuits.

Just out of interest, how long do you think these welfare systems have been in place?!?

reply to post by spoor


Thank you Spoor, you took the words right out of my mouth. I worked really hard to get my degree and now I'm...........serving tables. I'm still looking for my dream job but I have two children to feed. I may not love what I do, but I'm going to work until I get that job that I love. I don't care what people say, this lady is ridiculous. She needs to get over it. Take her butt to work, and keep on looking for that job she thinks she's "entitled to."

My first reaction was very much like the people who say "drag your butt to work, lady."

However, upon further review and actually reading the article, if they made her work on spec for two weeks over the retail holiday season on the hopes that she might get a minimum wage job later, and that caused her to stop her also unpaid work that would strengthen her bid for gainful employment in her chosen field, that's a load of crap.

It doesn't help that the OP said that a job at PoundLand (My new permanent fantasy football team name) is an insult...that's trolling. No honest job that puts food on the table is insulting at all. However, it seems like a bad use of human resource to take her from a job in her field for a spec job at a retailer.

That said, this girl wouldn't be the first person to work two jobs and 80 hour weeks while building their career. I don't think most research fellows got there by punching a 35 hour per week clock. She's also 22, with an undergrad in geology. Who thinks they can get a good job in a scientific field in this economy with just an undergrad? She's going up against post-docs!

So, to Cait, get your butt back to school, and take a job at a place like PoundLand as well as your TA job at university while you get at least two more degrees. Also, make at least your master's materials science so you can work in the private sector too. Oh, and stop whining. Undergrad degree holding lab assistants barely make any more than PoundLand cashiers anyway. Did you really think you'd be exploring volcanoes in South America after you just finished your gen ed requirements? By that logic, my two master's should get me on Obama's cabinet as his Secretary of Education, instead of hustling hard to get assistant principal interviews for next year.

She's delusional. Her lawyers are sharks. PoundLand is predatory. The government is shady. Everyone involved is kind of dumb. I award them no points, and may God have mercy on their souls.

Originally posted by antonia
As usual, most members of ATS cannot read.

No company should be getting free labor. I don't care if they are on the dole, if they work they should be paid for their work. Anything less than that is slavery.

Agree with you 100% what is happening is some employers are not taking on new permanent staff they are relying on this two weeks for free senario.

At least Poundland, Tesco's or the myriad of businesses who are taking advantage of this should pick up the tab.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by mandroids

 

Wow first world human rights issues... She won't be happy working because she is a snob and feels the job is beneath her. Ridiculous. It doesn't make you angry that you're (actually probably not) paying for her to volunteer? Tough luck girl. Do what the rest of the real world has to and take a crappy job to pay your bills.

Your 'valid points' really aren't. She can continue to volunteer and work a real job. There are a TON of people that aren't happy at work. They don't get govt. cheese because they have a case of the Mondays.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

lol. This pretty much sums up the problem.

The belief that the "first world" couldn't possibly have human rights issues.

I also find it funny that most of the hostile responses were "I was unemployed!" . Sadly , humans are much like crabs as we seek to pull each other down in our misery.

Yes you were unemployed and "did what you had to do" taking scraps and eating hog maws from the master's dinner plate.

That doesn't mean everyone else has to...I wish her the best of luck.