It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unemployed lady seeks legal advice over human rights issue.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:34 AM

Originally posted by scoobdude

Originally posted by scottlpool2003
reply to post by scoobdude

The government are paying aren't they? Will they not be paying JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) Are they not paying benefits? When you are on benefits, you are essentially paid by them. You do what your boss says or you don't get paid.

The whole point of JSA is you are actively seeking a job. Yes your friend may be genuinely trying to find a job, but hundreds of thousands aren't, and this is the harsh reality of getting these no good bums off benefits and in to work.

I think you missed my point.
1) already volunteering
2) forced to volunteer elsewhere for a PROFIT company
3) Profit company get free forced labor (aka "a slave")
4) Profit company now also gets tax break etc.

Now on to your 2nd point
1) who is to say she is not looking for a job?
2) If you boss tells you to pull your pants down and....well you get the point... its a civil rights violation (aka "a crime")

1. I get what you are saying that she's already volunteering, but not where they want her to volunteer. They may have a contract with Poundland, which sounds feasible as I've heard quite a few times of people being forced to work there while on benefits.

2. It's not forced labour, she has a choice not to go.

3. They are doing the government a favour taking staff on, they get tax breaks for volunteers so what?

The other points

1. Then this is only temporary? What's the big fuss?

2. Being told to work unpaid by people who are paying you so it's not really unpaid is it, is a little different than them telling you to pull your pants down.

I'm going to have to leave this conversation, because I'm getting quite worked up.

I hope your friend finds a solution, like putting priority into finding paid work to afford to live rather than keep working for free in the museum.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by scottlpool2003

From a Leyther to a Pie.....well said!!

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:37 AM
as said by someone earlier, she is being paid by the government\uk taxpayers so basically they\we are her employers. if they want her to do 2 weeks work (2 weeks... not until she finds a full time job) to basically EARN what she is being GIVEN then why shouldn't they. this should be done more, think of how many people out there claiming the dole for no reason at all except for the fact they are lazy bumholes!

think of it this way if your employer asked you to cover someones job for 2 weeks while they were on holiday you wouldn't take them to court would you, you'd just get on with it.

also, i'd also assume that the museum where she is doing the volunteer work would understand the fact that she has to be away for 2 weeks as the GOVERNMENT has asked her to do it.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:42 AM
just read this in the metro paper. sounds familiar as the jobcentre folks can be gits at times. and there was the A4e slave labour partnership.
i don't get it, she is working/volunteering at birmingham museum and art gallery so her benefits should be safe, its only if you refuse a permanent paying job do you get your benefits sanctioned.
i think it was a cockup that her advisor made and management didn't want to disagree with the advisor because they're like that. hope she kickes their ass anyways.

im ok with forcing lazy gits to work but poundland should find their own bloody means of employing and PAYING the employees. for the lazy git i think it would be better to do real work that our taxes pay for like garbage collection, public maintenance, etc. basically something that actually benefits us not a cheap ass company like poundland.
edit on 12/1/2012 by listerofsmeg because: because!

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:43 AM
I am sitting here shaking my head at the ignorance I am seeing. She feels entitled, she's stuck-up, etc. I am just going to assume NONE of you actually read the article and objectively pondered the case. Would you suck it up and go to work for NO paycheck?

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:48 AM
She goes and continues to get her benefits (ie is paid), or she doesn't go and doesn't get her benefits, simples. If I decide to stay at home and not come to work, I don't get paid, whats the difference. Lazy spoilt society......"oooh but I'm doing volunteer work", get a fecking job and pay your way like I have done for the last 28 years

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:49 AM
There is something decidely dodgy about this. There are 2.5 million unemployed consisting of, basically, skilled and unskilled people. Surely those unemployed who have no skills should be doing the poundland job?

The only logical way that she can be "the best matched candidate" for that job is if every single unemployed person has more skills and education than her. Otherwise she is being forced into that position due to a backhander from Poundland to somebody in the employment office OR she is being victimised.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:50 AM

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I am sitting here shaking my head at the ignorance I am seeing. She feels entitled, she's stuck-up, etc. I am just going to assume NONE of you actually read the article and objectively pondered the case. Would you suck it up and go to work for NO paycheck?

I have read this article in several papers today - i like to read a cross section so i do not get biased views from one source only!

I have also objectively thought about this case and i stick by the statements i have made. I hope she loses and is stuck with the court costs - it may introduce her to reality.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:52 AM
I have been watching developments in this case very closely. A few points to make about some questions/ comments from other posters (I'll be paraphrasing the questions/ comments):

1. Why not use money to keep public sector workers in work instead of putting them on benefits?

Well this is quite simple, it is far cheaper to put 10 public sector workers on benefits then it is to pay just 1 of them to stay in employment. It also increases the number of people on benefits for the editors of the Daily Mail to vilify for their "I'm alright Jack" readership.

2. This is NOT a human rights issue.

Clearly it is. We are allowing our fellow humans to be at best coerced and at worst downright forced into labour for private companies at well below minimum wage. That sounds a little too close to a "slave labour" force to me and by allowing it to happen we are on a slippery slope.

While I have no objections to a "work for benefits" type system this is NOT the way to go about it. Work out their total weekly benefits (including housing and council tax) then divide that by the national minimum wage to give a total number of hours required to work in the PUBLIC sector, not benefiting already bloated companies. You are not paying them one penny extra, merely saying, "You get X amount per week so must do Y amount of hours." And voilla, you now have a FAIR system that treats everyone with decency and has a substantially increased chance of leading to permanent positions.

A final point I'd like to touch upon that I haven't seen mentioned. This program is primarily aimed at those the DWP has nicknamed, "NEETS," not in employment, education or training. These will invariably be young people. Can anyone here remember what happened last time we pushed our young a little too far? Several large cities in the UK suffered the worst riots in living memory. Our solution to this? Poke them more... hmmmm.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:56 AM
Are some of you guys just thick or plain stupid??

The girl was already volunteering..


If you was a company who was offered money and free labour wouldnt you not snap it up??

Poundland are the scum here and the benefits agency are the idiots who do not see what is going on!!

Bloody unbelievable!!

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

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:58 AM
reply to post by PW229

Point 2 - she receives JSA - that is a handout from the state subsidised by those of us that work. Why should she not be expected to work for it? I have been on JSA before and would happily have worked for 2 weeks if it meant that i continued to receive it whilst still looking for work. It cannot be a Human Rights issue as she is receiving payment for work done (her continued JSA).

I really do not understand some of the mindsets here. What you are basically advocating is that if you do not like your work then jack it in and the state will support you. Makes me despair for the future of our country....

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:16 AM
Well I can certainly see how a business has trading results such as this, especially if they are getting workers that do not need to be paid a salary...

Poundland's profits up 122% (2008)

Poundland profit leaps 47 percent (2009)

Poundland's annual profits soared by 130% to £19.8m (2010)

Poundland profits up by more than 80% (2011)

Bear in mind that jobseekers allowance (that the woman received) comes in at £53.45-a-week. I cannot find how many hours she was asked to do but if it were a typical full-time work placement that would be the equivalent of £1.53 per hour. What is the point in having a minimum wage?

From a lot of the replies in this thread I think that the minute benefits are mentioned people simply see red and post tripe rather than actually looking at the facts.

Remember that for the first six months of unemployment the payments you receive come from your own tax payments made in the past.

Here is the link to the article, the opening post appears to have a broken link...

It is my human right not to work for Poundland: Graduate who faced losing benefit sues ministers
edit on 12-1-2012 by XXXN3O because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:22 AM
The UK is full of academic no hopers , by this I mean over qualified for the job market that we have now , these people should understand that the market is not crying out for there academic talents at this time.
The minute anyone seeks state benefits and get it , they are in line for flack and ridicule from working people who pay tax, yet to watch the news media , as they report a rise in unemployment figures , you would think half the UK was on the dole , such doom and gloom , the way it is portrayed , we have say 3 million out of work in a country of 60 million , drop in the ocean, the media dictate the narrative , they play working people off unemployed , hence you get silly people on call in shows baying for blood regarding unemployed benefit cheats , meanwhile the government is fleecing the public by the hour , BUT move along , nothing to see get back to benefit cheats and squabble amongst yourselves.

Wiki David Cameron.................just look at the family bloodline and privilege

REVOLUTION needs to come soon before they lock us all down.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by PW229

I really do not understand some of the mindsets here. What you are basically advocating is that if you do not like your work then jack it in and the state will support you. Makes me despair for the future of our country....

That mindset is called "empathy." We are living in an age of fear. Everyone is scared of something, losing your job, fearful of immigrants, terrorists, paedophiles lurking around every corner, the great Age of Fear. When the voting masses are living in this state you need to give them a target for their contempt lest it be turned on the true criminals in government. The unemployed, the mentally ill, ex offenders, the disabled and the elderly. These are easy targets for the true monsters to point their fingers at and proclaim, "See? It's not us, it's THEM doing this to you."

I refuse to buy into it. I refuse to allow myself to be brainwashed into pointing fingers anywhere but "big government." I have empathy for my fellow humans, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM and I will not be bullied into looking down on my fellow humans in their state of misery and suffering.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by mandroids

This is why I don't and won't ever collect....they can stick it up their A$@ so Glad I didn't qualify, it's much easier to do side no tax/ and get other subsidized things (IE Food stamps) and because you aren't getting cash no one forces you to take some crummy dollar store job.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:56 AM
I have to ask, do they make the welfare people over there take unpaid positions because they are actually owned by the government. I mean at least in the USA any and all UE insurance the person in fact, PAID for that money to be there should something happen....effectively IT IS THEIR MONEY ANYWAY!!! NOT THE GOVERNMENTS' So how is this fair again...they should indeed do this to the welfare people since a good portion of them never contributed a dime, they should not be penalizing someone WHO CONTRIBUTED TO UNEMPLOYMENT!!!

Unless it is different in the UK. Which IDK it could be, but to be fair then the ghetto queens need to be treated the exact same way. Fair is fair.
edit on 12-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: spelling

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by just1cornell0

The government should not be subsidising Pound Land or any other private company with cheap labour. Now I have no problem with people being made to do some work in their communities, voluntary services and charities. Things taking a hit in these times, but to exploit people for private gain is morally wrong however you want to dress it up.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:20 AM

Originally posted by davespanners
Some of the replies here are a little misleading I feel.

The girl in question was NEVER offered paid work in poundland, she was made to leave one voluntary position (working in a museum) to go and work FOR FREE at poundland for 2 weeks in the run up to Christmas
She was told that she would then get an interview for an actual paid position there which never happened.

So she wasn't taken from a voluntary position in order to be given paid work, she was taken from a voluntary position in a job that was actually somewhat relevant to her career goal to work for free in another job that wasn't

I'm not sure when exactly the government started supplying unpaid labour to private companies.
edit on 12-1-2012 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

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

Exactly...And by supplying said unpaid labour to these companies they are giving them an excuse to drop their full time staff and purely take on people they don't have to employ.
That's really going to help isn't it?

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:28 AM
Sometimes you just have to get a job while the CAREER goes on the back burner. Such is life.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

i missed that about poundland getting subsidies for 'volunteers'... which is definately MEGA wrong.

BUT, i still feel its right that people on JSA should be made (yes made) to work. but it should be changed to, at locally run business' which would in turn help the local community & economy and in turn may help people get paid work. rather than bloating the pockets of these multi-million ££ companies.... oh the joy of Capitalism

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in