Unemployed lady seeks legal advice over human rights issue.

ok,,, last comment and i'll try not to get wound up.

Though I hardly ever agree with any government initiative.... this makes sense.

They are only asking her to work at poundland for TWO WEEKS.

why,,,, because employers care about two things 1. your skillset [so in this case it would be her diploma] 2. your experience [while having experience in a related field is very useful it isn't essential,,, what is essential is that you prove to the employer that you know the score about what 'work' is. You don't learn that in school,, you learn it working at starbucks or flipping burgers]

This is a fact!!! I have personally hired over twenty people over the last year with varying skill levels,, I've also hired a couple of college grads with hardly any experience,, but I know the score and even though they apologetically told me about how they'd been working part time at maccy's to pay the bills I instantly knew that they wheren't just 'students' but knew what it was like to EARN a living!!

The government realize this and they are trying to do her a favour,,, trust me, having poundland or wherever on her cv will help her get her dream job MUCH MUCH more than not working at all.

And if it's the fact that she has to do it through JSA is what she doesn't like,, then get off the dole and go apply to poundland or tesco or where ever!!!

REALITY CHECK PLEASE!

I dont know where all of you guys are getting this.... I paid my taxes, she shouldnt be getting....

That's all horse dooky

I pay my taxes and the government takes some of my money too. What they also take is...

Where do you think that money that is taken by the government goes?

I worked for 15 years before I was forced to get on unemployment for a little while.

Those of you that say that someone in that possition should not be allowed to it...

SCREW YOU!

I payed my fair share. I paid WAY MORE than the amount that was given to me over a years time. It's called UNEMPLOYMENT BENIFITS... WHICH YOU PAY FOR when you work.

Get educated, people. YOU are not the one footing her bill. I'm quite sure she's footed some of her own, as well as her employeer who pays for this INSURANCE in case such a thing happens. It's comming from her own funds and her previous employeer.

You people sound as communistic as the damn country, China with North Korean tendancies.


Hogwash!

Perhaps she should interview for geology related jobs honestly... "I sat and lived off of taxpayers for the last year. Yeah I was offered other jobs, but they were below me." This stinks of snobbery and laziness. Who would hire her, if they knew what they were really getting?

reply to post by Domo1


I'm not necessarily defending this womans case but your objections have serious flaws.

you are basically saying misery=normality. everyone else is miserable and accepts things as they are...who does she think she is to demand more?

which is the same mentality in which people try to bring down others who are doing things they cannot.

Its a-grade BS and prevents progress.

-TF

Originally posted by davespanners
I'm not sure when exactly the government started supplying unpaid labour to private companies.

In the 1980's, 'youth training scheme'. It paid the same money as unemployment, but you worked a full time job for a private company, for two years. It was compulsory for kids leaving school if they couldn't find a regular job.

I find it ridiculous the amount of people here saying she should be grateful for the job. What a backwards way to think. The lack of 'jobs', money, is all artificial, and you're just lying down and taking it, and telling others they should too. It's not her fault the economy is a mess for us regular folks, better go talk to the private owners of industry and ask them why all the jobs have disappeared, hint, other countries where they can exploit labour for bigger profits.

The reality is getting a degree is now is a rip-off. The schools have got too greedy, and now everyone and their uncle has a degree. It's like inflation, a masters is now only worth an associate degree lol. For capitalism to work there has to be a balance of working class (blue collar), middle class (white collar), and capitalist class (private owners of means of production), otherwise it stops working. You had too big of a middle class, and now you're all going to be poor middle class. All the 'working class' jobs have gone overseas, the fault of the capitalist class. Without that blue collar backbone you lose 'middle class' jobs, because those jobs generally support industry.

Geez. I had a Masters degree and wound up working the minimum wage for a year until I got my act together. I didn't whine about it and I certainly didn't think my civil rights were being violated just because I was too stupid to get myself educated in a field that offered jobs that paid well, or jobs in my field at all. I don't blame the government at all for cutting this loon off. Cry baby.

reply to post by ThoughtForms


You are absolutely 100% correct! She is more than welcome to wait it out. Perhaps with 6 months of unemployment benefits. Maybe even a little bit longer since the economy is doing poorly. But after this it should be on her own dime. No one is stopping her. But if she wants to eat then she needs to take responsability for herself.

I know of a family where as the man didn't want to take a job beneath him. So he said... This went on for many years. They had no food or money. So the pretty wife went out and worked in a bar flirting for tips. And he became a stay at home dad. Then the pretty wife found someone else. Stuck to his own resources he magically found a job immediately. So lets see, he couldn't find a decent job for years. But when his support finally left, he finds one. Anyone can figure out what happened here.

Originally posted by schuyler
Geez. I had a Masters degree and wound up working the minimum wage for a year until I got my act together. I didn't whine about it and I certainly didn't think my civil rights were being violated just because I was too stupid to get myself educated in a field that offered jobs that paid well, or jobs in my field at all. I don't blame the government at all for cutting this loon off. Cry baby.

But she was moved from one unpaid job that was related to her degree, to another unpaid job. What was the point other than they needed cheap labour?

It's a racket. It helped no one but those who got the free labour.

I think people are missing the big picture, this is about the freedom to choose. How so easily you would all give that away. You are letting the economy enslave and exploit you, which capitalism does.

Originally posted by ANOK
I think people are missing the big picture, this is about the freedom to choose. How so easily you would all give that away. You are letting the economy enslave and exploit you, which capitalism does.

They are mate... most people are thinking this is some snotty, stuck up, educated woman who thinks that stacking shelves is below her and will not take the job.


The truth is that this is not a job.... it's forced labour for which she gets no payment.
She already gets JSA as does everyone else in her position... she already volunteers, this is designed to allow companies to get free labour and increase their profits.... for no other reason.

This woman will not benefit, there is no job offer and she does not get paid for her work.

reply to post by Domo1


I think she needs to take the job. It's an either or situation. I think it would look far worse if she had no job than if she took a lesser job and then explained that she took the job because of the financial crisis. If an employer can't understand that they aren't being thoughtful.

reply to post by ThoughtForms


Just giving her money until she finds her job doesn't really help progress either. So her taking such a stand would be good for the overall message it sends but it's not a stand that is going to result her getting the type of job that she wants.

What would make her stance different is if she took a stand toward working anywhere because of the system. She wants to be part of the system so it's not really the same thing. She wants it to be HER way. I don't think it's unreasonable to force her to make a decision. She either takes the job or she doesn't. If she doesn't take it she makes no money. The job of the state isn't to provide an "ideal" job. I'm sure that there would be plenty of people who would take that job in a second.

Originally posted by americababy
The job of the state isn't to provide an "ideal" job. I'm sure that there would be plenty of people who would take that job in a second.

Take what job??

There is no job......

Sheesh.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by davespanners
I'm not sure when exactly the government started supplying unpaid labour to private companies.

In the 1980's, 'youth training scheme'. It paid the same money as unemployment, but you worked a full time job for a private company, for two years. It was compulsory for kids leaving school if they couldn't find a regular job.

I find it ridiculous the amount of people here saying she should be grateful for the job. What a backwards way to think. The lack of 'jobs', money, is all artificial, and you're just lying down and taking it, and telling others they should too. It's not her fault the economy is a mess for us regular folks, better go talk to the private owners of industry and ask them why all the jobs have disappeared, hint, other countries where they can exploit labour for bigger profits.

The reality is getting a degree is now is a rip-off. The schools have got too greedy, and now everyone and their uncle has a degree. It's like inflation, a masters is now only worth an associate degree lol. For capitalism to work there has to be a balance of working class (blue collar), middle class (white collar), and capitalist class (private owners of means of production), otherwise it stops working. You had too big of a middle class, and now you're all going to be poor middle class. All the 'working class' jobs have gone overseas, the fault of the capitalist class. Without that blue collar backbone you lose 'middle class' jobs, because those jobs generally support industry.

edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo

No one ever seems to talk about production. I mean what the economy produces that she uses to buy with her money. Access to goods has always been the key to this whole thing. A Lamborghini can be built for 100,000 or a 1000. It's about how efficent you build it.

Originally posted by MeesterB
What did she think was going to happen with a degree in Geology?
Maybe she was hoping to get a fracking job, but that's sorta like getting an undergrad degree in history and expecting to become a university professor.
I'm all for people following their passions, but we have to live in the real world.

Argh, as I posted earlier (page 4 maybe?) there is no lack of jobs in geology, and in fact the demand is growing (as is the salaries). Geology is the most misunderstood science in the world I think. Everyone thinks like you do Meester: Rocks? WTH are you going to with a degree in rocks?

Geology deals with dozens of facets of your daily life, you just don't see them. I'm having a hard time writing it out in sentences w/o turning this into a monster post, so I'll just rattle off a few vital things that geologists help out with: Water, Food, Electronics, Oil, Natural Gas, Public Safety, Surface Water, Ground Water, Pollution...I could go on but I won't. Fact is there's jobs aplenty if someone is willing to work.

I have a feeling this girl has her dreams set on one certain job, because if she was hungry she could get work no problem.

Originally posted by Suspiria

If people want her to bust her arse working for pennies, how in hell do people expect her to pay travel expenses to another country when she can barely afford the bus fare to the other side of town?

I have a smart-arsed response for that one, but I'll refrain. I can tell you there are plenty of jobs that will pay travel expenses. In fact she could probably get a signing bonus in the current geology market.
I'll leave you with this: I'll have my BS in Geology in a few months, and I start on my MS in the fall. Summer 2013 I will go to a petroleum Industry recruiting convention and get hired and given a $50K signing bonus, having one year of school to complete before I can even work for them. THAT is how bad geologists are needed right now.

i just read through half of this thread and have come to one startling conclusion: The members of ATS have TERRIBLE reading comprehension.

This girl was not given a job that she is complaining about being beneath her. Quite the contrary. She was forced to work at this job for no pay, in order to keep receiving the benefit she was already getting. The article stated that she started on unemployment pay in August. She was forced to work that job at Poundland shortly before Christmas for the holiday rush.
She was not the typical lazy, sit-on-you-ass type of unemployed person. She was actually doing a job for free in the field that she wants to work in, trying to give herself something to put on a resume.

In both instances (at the museum, and at Poundland) she was receiving a government salary of 57 per week. Tax payers are still paying for her either way.


Had she been actually offered a job at the store and turned it down, then I wouldn't be siding with this girl. But that just simply isn't that case. She should not have had to do that, considering she was already working. If she was sitting at home doing nothing all day, then she should be put to work. But again, that wasn't the case.


I hope she wins this case. An unemployment program is useless if it isn't trying to help advance the career of the people using it.

I have to side with the officials with this...

The skill set or other ten dollar over used catch words are present... The job offered is quite relevant to her job...

With a degree she should have been offered at the very least lead... in the us it is easy for that piece of crap paper to put incompetents into management...I have had the pleasure of firing more then my share of the world owes me this position people....

Her first fail is apparently a lack of interviewing skills... this means she cant communicate her points nor her skills quite well...


You asked what a retail positions entails that is apparently beneath several posters here...

This is the set of skills that cross over...
- Inventory... keeping track of items present at location (RK)

- receiving... the ability to properly tag all incoming items(record keeping)

-Shipping... the ability to ensure basic requirements for sending items to their proper places (record keeping as well)

-Stocking... storing items where they are supposed to be... (RK)

-loss prevention... keep items from being stolen at location

-time clock... time keeping (RK) very important.. being on time

-uniforms... the proper clothes are very important and very by job (safety gear included)

-Safety procedure... chemicals ect...

-Assignments... the ability to follow orders...

the job is completely relevant to her skillset of geologist

each one of the above are skills she needs to excell in her field...

The skills from retail functions are expressions of a large part of what her job entails... it sounds like she has no skills and this is why she is not working... With a degree you can get entry level jobs easily...

how can she do any field work in her field if she cant even get her hands dirty... if she is too good to receive a shipment of goods and stock a shelf how can I trust her to get the core sample to the lab for analysis... for that fact if she cant operate a cash register how is she going to be able to operate the controls of the various machines in the lab...

On this one they are right, the skills are there that relate to her field. Either take the job or do without....

If she were to check her attitude about
second rate jobs she would be happier.
Lots of people would love the job she
doesn't want to take. Some even take
pleasure in learning retail and you can
learn a lot about people at the same time.
That experience is good for any person
that plans on entering a career. Not only
that it pays the bills and you can eat!

Originally posted by americababy
No one ever seems to talk about production. I mean what the economy produces that she uses to buy with her money. Access to goods has always been the key to this whole thing. A Lamborghini can be built for 100,000 or a 1000. It's about how efficent you build it.

Without production you have nothing. People have got used to the idea of making money from money, stock market, investments, loans etc., but that only works for a short time because you're not really making money, it's just being moved around.

To make money you have to produce goods for the market.

The big problem is people have been conditioned to think capitalism is a free market system, but in reality it isn't, unless you own capital, and can use that capital to make money. If people realised that when the capitalist class talk they're not really talking to the non-capitalist class, as we are not free like they are. It's no different to the times of nobles and commoners, we are the 'commoners', we are not citizens, we own no land. We have to pay to live on their land, common land law is no more, feudalism had ended to be replaced by capitalism, because the laws changed allowing land owners to sell parcels of their land, thus giving the 'land owner' the right to kick the commoners off his land. We are now exploited by capitalist owners of industry, because we have to produce more than we are paid for, in order for the owner to make money. The owner can use his profit to make more money be redistributed to him, through investing.

Without the 'private owner', capitalist, we would earn for all we produce, and no one is getting rich off our labour by investing what should have been ours to begin with. So simple, yet so tainted by propaganda and the capitalist agenda.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by americababy
No one ever seems to talk about production. I mean what the economy produces that she uses to buy with her money. Access to goods has always been the key to this whole thing. A Lamborghini can be built for 100,000 or a 1000. It's about how efficent you build it.

Without production you have nothing. People have got used to the idea of making money from money, stock market, investments, loans etc., but that only works for a short time because you're not really making money, it's just being moved around.

To make money you have to produce goods for the market.

The big problem is people have been conditioned to think capitalism is a free market system, but in reality it isn't, unless you own capital, and can use that capital to make money. If people realised that when the capitalist class talk they're not really talking to the non-capitalist class, as we are not free like they are. It's no different to the times of nobles and commoners, we are the 'commoners', we are not citizens, we own no land. We have to pay to live on their land, common land law is no more, feudalism had ended to be replaced by capitalism, because the laws changed allowing land owners to sell parcels of their land, thus giving the 'land owner' the right to kick the commoners off his land. We are now exploited by capitalist owners of industry, because we have to produce more than we are paid for, in order for the owner to make money. The owner can use his profit to make more money be redistributed to him, through investing.

Without the 'private owner', capitalist, we would earn for all we produce, and no one is getting rich off our labour by investing what should have been ours to begin with. So simple, yet so tainted by propaganda and the capitalist agenda.

edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo

There's a book by Henry Ford(yeah that one) that is called 'My Life and Work'. It's the best book I have ever read and it will give you the answer to the entire problem. You can get it for free on Googles Project Gutenburg. That's the project where they put books online for free that are public domain. The guy was brilliant.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by americababy
No one ever seems to talk about production. I mean what the economy produces that she uses to buy with her money. Access to goods has always been the key to this whole thing. A Lamborghini can be built for 100,000 or a 1000. It's about how efficent you build it.

Without production you have nothing. People have got used to the idea of making money from money, stock market, investments, loans etc., but that only works for a short time because you're not really making money, it's just being moved around.

To make money you have to produce goods for the market.

The big problem is people have been conditioned to think capitalism is a free market system, but in reality it isn't, unless you own capital, and can use that capital to make money. If people realised that when the capitalist class talk they're not really talking to the non-capitalist class, as we are not free like they are. It's no different to the times of nobles and commoners, we are the 'commoners', we are not citizens, we own no land. We have to pay to live on their land, common land law is no more, feudalism had ended to be replaced by capitalism, because the laws changed allowing land owners to sell parcels of their land, thus giving the 'land owner' the right to kick the commoners off his land. We are now exploited by capitalist owners of industry, because we have to produce more than we are paid for, in order for the owner to make money. The owner can use his profit to make more money be redistributed to him, through investing.

Without the 'private owner', capitalist, we would earn for all we produce, and no one is getting rich off our labour by investing what should have been ours to begin with. So simple, yet so tainted by propaganda and the capitalist agenda.

edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo

I would call it capitalist entrenchment. The agenda is perpetuation. Continuity. A capitalist just happens to have more ways to survive. There's nothing saying you can't go out there and be a captalist with the intention of providing a better deal to people.
I don't agree with you that the worker should get 100 percent of his work if he is unable to make himself productive. In a context where you couldn't buy property I would say you were right. The only context where the inability of a private individual to own land should not exist is one in which the standard of living is above what could ever be had in a capitalist system.
It's a very difficult problem to solve. That's why no one tries to solve it. You have to have the plan that will work. I do think though that you could put me in the middle of a despotic third world country with 100 million dollars and I would have that country producing more than Chna within 15 years.