Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Working For Free Proves Unlawful.
52 Answers
http://
Doesn't the Government consult their legal teams before introducing certain measures?
Doesn't the Government consult their legal teams before introducing certain measures?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably - and it probably ignores their advice too
That woman who IDS thinks should be working at Poundland was already doing volentary work at a museum after her geology degree and the DWP made her give that up to stack shelves at Poundland for free!
Hardly going to get her better job prospects was it?
That woman who IDS thinks should be working at Poundland was already doing volentary work at a museum after her geology degree and the DWP made her give that up to stack shelves at Poundland for free!
Hardly going to get her better job prospects was it?
The short answer is "No" , aog. The problem here, as quite often, is that ministers want regulations drawn up quickly, which they can sign into law, all pursuant to an Act. Unfortunately, whoever draws up the regulations doesn't do more than do what they think the minister wants and doesn't read the Act, which gives him the power, properly, first.If they did, they'd find either that the Act doesn't give a power to make some regulations at all, or that the regulations they've drawn up are inconsistent with it, or with other laws.
A prize example? A colleague took a cab. The driver was complaining about being prosecuted under the regulations for Heathrow Airport. Being bored, she took the trouble to research the regulations. They made sense. She then looked for the statute which empowered the minister to make regulations. It gave a power but only to regulate certain restricted topics, such as speed limits. The regulation which the cab driver was prosecuted under was one which the Act didn't give the minister any power to make and so was ultra vires and completely unenforceable. What had happened was, over many years, regulations were made as and when, as the minster's department thought fit, and nobody had bothered to check the Act
A prize example? A colleague took a cab. The driver was complaining about being prosecuted under the regulations for Heathrow Airport. Being bored, she took the trouble to research the regulations. They made sense. She then looked for the statute which empowered the minister to make regulations. It gave a power but only to regulate certain restricted topics, such as speed limits. The regulation which the cab driver was prosecuted under was one which the Act didn't give the minister any power to make and so was ultra vires and completely unenforceable. What had happened was, over many years, regulations were made as and when, as the minster's department thought fit, and nobody had bothered to check the Act
Obviously not !
If Poundland or any other company has jobs that need doing, then they should pay the people PAYE that do them.
Any benfits should take that pay into account.
what I do find amusing and pathetically naive is how many people (judging by readers comments on lots of the news site) actually believe that doing a job such as the one this particular women refused is a stepping stone to bigger and better things.
for a miniscule handful of people perhaps but for the majority its just a waste of their time, time that they could be using to look for more suitable jobs.
It wont make your CV look "good", youd be better of hedging your bets with a few porkies.
Have a friend whos a "Senior HR consultant" posh speak for interviewer !, who says he doesnt know of any company that would look more favourably upon a CV because of a useless forced job placement from a government scheme.
And if youre going for a job thats at the same sort of skill level this woman was asked to do, then usually it doesnt need anything in the way of real training anyway, so they really arent that bothered.
i have employed numerous people over the years and it wouldnt impress me in any way or form
If Poundland or any other company has jobs that need doing, then they should pay the people PAYE that do them.
Any benfits should take that pay into account.
what I do find amusing and pathetically naive is how many people (judging by readers comments on lots of the news site) actually believe that doing a job such as the one this particular women refused is a stepping stone to bigger and better things.
for a miniscule handful of people perhaps but for the majority its just a waste of their time, time that they could be using to look for more suitable jobs.
It wont make your CV look "good", youd be better of hedging your bets with a few porkies.
Have a friend whos a "Senior HR consultant" posh speak for interviewer !, who says he doesnt know of any company that would look more favourably upon a CV because of a useless forced job placement from a government scheme.
And if youre going for a job thats at the same sort of skill level this woman was asked to do, then usually it doesnt need anything in the way of real training anyway, so they really arent that bothered.
i have employed numerous people over the years and it wouldnt impress me in any way or form
The principle - of the state encouraging back to work schemes for those on benefits - is sound. The implementation, by means of these "workfare" schemes, seems confused, disjointed and questionable.
In this particular instance, the jobcentre staff advised this woman that it was mandatory that she sign up for this programme - of stacking shelves in poundland for free. This was not the case. It was mandatory to attend work once you have signed up, but not to actually sign up in the first place.
Some of these schemes could be considered questionable. It seems to me that large corporations can use such schemes to subsidise corporate profits. Further, they deny existing paid workers overtime opportunities, and drive down basic wage requirements.
In this particular instance, the jobcentre staff advised this woman that it was mandatory that she sign up for this programme - of stacking shelves in poundland for free. This was not the case. It was mandatory to attend work once you have signed up, but not to actually sign up in the first place.
Some of these schemes could be considered questionable. It seems to me that large corporations can use such schemes to subsidise corporate profits. Further, they deny existing paid workers overtime opportunities, and drive down basic wage requirements.
The old system, which survives, was abused. Many a youngster has been offered a job as 'a trainee' or 'intern' on tiny wages or no wage at all, only to find that the employer chucked them out and get another 'trainee' or 'intern' to do what is menial donkey work of no educational or training value whatsoever.
Yes, I don't think the working for 'free' issue is the issue upon which this has been deemed unlawful- isn't it the sanctions and the compulsion element that caused the problem.
As honeydip says they are not working for free as they get benefits and maybe some travel costs.
It's also not really free labour for the employers- in my experience work experience people were often more trouble than they are worth, especially if they are unwilling. Someone from Poundland would have to train them, supervise them, check their work and report on their performance, attendance etc, although I accept some employers may cut corners on this. Some firms have left the scheme because the drawbacks exceed the benefits of free labour
As honeydip says they are not working for free as they get benefits and maybe some travel costs.
It's also not really free labour for the employers- in my experience work experience people were often more trouble than they are worth, especially if they are unwilling. Someone from Poundland would have to train them, supervise them, check their work and report on their performance, attendance etc, although I accept some employers may cut corners on this. Some firms have left the scheme because the drawbacks exceed the benefits of free labour
Ok to keep it simple, apart from the court ruling its illegal etc.
If Poundland have jobs that need doing, why arent they paying people to do them.
If the government says people should be doing them why arent they telling Poundland to pay them the minimum salary or more if its a higher paid job.
If their benefit is a say £100pw and the job pays £70 then they only get £30 benefit, as long as the net figures are the same then I dont see any problem, apart from sending people to do totally unsuited work, which for the vast majority wont be of any use whatsover
If Poundland have jobs that need doing, why arent they paying people to do them.
If the government says people should be doing them why arent they telling Poundland to pay them the minimum salary or more if its a higher paid job.
If their benefit is a say £100pw and the job pays £70 then they only get £30 benefit, as long as the net figures are the same then I dont see any problem, apart from sending people to do totally unsuited work, which for the vast majority wont be of any use whatsover
@aelmpvw
precisely
they will at most get the minimal amount of effort from people needed to get by and stay there so as not to get kicked out and lose any benefits.
A fair amount of them will probably be disruptive in some way or another.
I'm sure all the big companies inolved even though they havent exactly said it know this and that why some have pulled out.
what would you rather have working for you, someone who wants to be there or someone who doesnt ?
bit of a no brainer really
precisely
they will at most get the minimal amount of effort from people needed to get by and stay there so as not to get kicked out and lose any benefits.
A fair amount of them will probably be disruptive in some way or another.
I'm sure all the big companies inolved even though they havent exactly said it know this and that why some have pulled out.
what would you rather have working for you, someone who wants to be there or someone who doesnt ?
bit of a no brainer really
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank235 mins ago
Why Are Oxbridge Students Now Terrorist...
News302 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.